• 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

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

No doubt that there could be perfectly innocent explanations for a young girls number on his phone. He might be the... I dunno... Coach of a softball team the girl played on. But it sure seems odd that if there was a reasonable connection, someone would have spoken up to reporters by now. Instead, the townspeople all say they are baffled.

As far as having the numbers of your kids friends.. did you? I didn't. My kids kept in contact on their own devices, and if they lost their phone, would call me from a friend's phone (usually to engage the find my phone feature), but I'd never store a kids number. I'm not a kid, and have no business at all calling one for any reason.
 
No doubt that there could be perfectly innocent explanations for a young girls number on his phone. He might be the... I dunno... Coach of a softball team the girl played on. But it sure seems odd that if there was a reasonable connection, someone would have spoken up to reporters by now. Instead, the townspeople all say they are baffled.



As far as having the numbers of your kids friends.. did you? I didn't. My kids kept in contact on their own devices, and if they lost their phone, would call me from a friend's phone (usually to engage the find my phone feature), but I'd never store a kids number. I'm not a kid, and have no business at all calling one for any reason.
Uh yeah, I still have a bunch of my kids friends numbers in my phone. They were kids. They'd leave their phones at home or leave it at a friend's place. I'd save it so I knew to answer it. Must just be a North Dakota thing that we don't find that odd. I'm not sexting them or calling them at 3 a.m. to ask what they're wearing. They're kids. I probably have some I've never dialed myself. Again, not odd to me at all.

The townspeople are saying they're baffled by the shooting. If they felt it was odd for the judge to have her number, I can't find any quotes about it. Seems to be a bit ho-hum to them as well.

Oh well, we'll get more as it comes out.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
 
The townspeople are saying they're baffled by the shooting. If they felt it was odd for the judge to have her number, I can't find any quotes about it. Seems to be a bit ho-hum to them as well.

The more parsimonious explanation is that they don't latch on to little tiny details of a crime the way forum posters and true crime podcasts do.
 
Uh yeah, I still have a bunch of my kids friends numbers in my phone. They were kids. They'd leave their phones at home or leave it at a friend's place. I'd save it so I knew to answer it. Must just be a North Dakota thing that we don't find that odd. I'm not sexting them or calling them at 3 a.m. to ask what they're wearing. They're kids. I probably have some I've never dialed myself. Again, not odd to me at all.

I think it might be that since my wife is in a school and I associate with lawyers, and in my work I have to be careful about minors around, there is a defensive thinking front and center? My kids knew to text me, saying who they were if using an unfamiliar cel, so saving their contacts wasn't necessary. I just read the text. I dunno.

townspeople are saying they're baffled by the shooting. If they felt it was odd for the judge to have her number, I can't find any quotes about it. Seems to be a bit ho-hum to them as well.

Or that's part of what makes it baffling.

Oh well, we'll get more as it comes out.

Fo sho. But honestly, I feel more primed for new information, having thought more in detail about stuff I never thought much about. Like, I scrolled through my hundreds of contacts. Not a minor among them, except family that have grown up and my still minor nieces. All the kids i know, i have no reason to contact directly. I go to their parents. There is nothing I'd need to deal with a kid directly about.
 
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.

Have you then abandoned your objection that this information was only available to "Google miners"? Now it's just a common sense guess?

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.

True, but again, his "phony" motive statement also addresses that, though.

Oh Jesus Christ dude,

Jesus Christ is not here, Thermal. God cannot save you. You are locked in here with me.

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.

Your entire theorem rests on this judge being exactly not that - the whole statutory rape thing and all - so I don't see why my "lack of procedure" is somehow so outlandish by comparison to yours.

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.

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.

It wasn't the only thing I had snipped from that paragraph, though. I usually snip things out of your posts I'm not directly responding to; no need to build a conspiracy theory over it. You're prone to hyberbole, weird extraneous metaphors, and repetitive explanations and I tend to remove those as clutter, keeping only the main idea and then responding to that. These posts are long enough as it is. So I'm afraid it's very much a confirmation bias thing on your part; when I clip out something that you later decide is important it's a "tell" that I'm trying to avoid addressing it, but when I clip out something that even you recognize isn't really important it doesn't even register to you.

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.

Certainly. Or she might call someone she actually knows, that she feels also might have the authority to deal with the situation, and that she feels safer and more comfortable talking to.

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.

Yes I know that in the face of my pushback you're trying your utmost now to act like you've always been talking about mere happenstance association with the murder - which, I continue to point out, is a ship that sailed the moment Stines pulled the trigger, no matter what he says afterwards - and trying to act now like you're not implying any worse a fate than the unpleasant inconvenience of people bringing up what her father did every so often, as in your personal example.

But that's not how this tangent started. The explanation you offered for why this guy would be willing to kill the judge, admit to doing so, and even go as far as saying that he did it to protect his daughter BUT leave out the specific detail that the judge had been sexually abusing her, was do you think a father wants it broadcast that his daughter is the little girl that ***** old men? Don't act like this is something I'm injecting, and that this whole time your mindset has been strictly along the lines of, like, the mild irritation of being reminded every once in a while about an embarrassing childhood jape.

Come on, you literally said when a potential employer googles the daughters name, what international news story do you think might be the lingering first hit for decades? Why on earth do you think a hiring manager at who knows, AT&T or someplace, is going to even care that a news article from ten years ago says that her father went to jail for killing someone who abused her when she was a minor?

And for much more than the second time. no it need not. You're the only one worshipping the "kidnapping" third hand hearsay report.

Um, no - on this tangent I'm entertaining your assertion that it's a lie; and on this particular point it does not matter what his statement was as long as it's not true. He could say he was cleaning his gun and it went off, for all the difference it makes. All that matters is that the known facts of the case don't match up with whatever he says, so the prosecution is absolutely going to investigate and surface the real details.

You believe the Twitter rumor had to have been started by someone with knowledge of the crime. Not merely aware that the judge had been abusing Stines' daughter, but somehow aware or in a position to correctly deduce, within hours and possibly even minutes of the killing, that Stines had found out about it and that was the reason Stines did the murder. If this random stranger from nowhere was able to put this together and has loose enough lips to be willing to post as much to Twitter - the famous public viral social media website - the prosecution is going to be able to put it together too I can assure you, because it was clearly something that was known about, and by people who aren't the secret-keeping kind.


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.

But he did give them reason, didn't he? Surely not willingly, but it's now known that he called or tried to call his daughter on the phone, seconds before the murder. You, ISF Forum poster who have immediately flagged that detail as vitally significant, only even know about it because the police investigator who seems to be in charge at the moment brought it up in court as an item of interest during the preliminary hearing, which was then reported on. You really think they're not going to look any further into it, especially now that they have to come up with a motive since he pleaded not guilty? Just going to take his word for it that she had nothing to do with it at all?
 
Last edited:
The lead investigator said at the hearing that "the girls number was in the judges phone".
Thanks.

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

I couldn't view it. Did it seem like a recent photo? I ask because the photo of the sheriff used in early news reports looked younger (and clean-shaven) compared to a post-arrest pic.
 

Np.

I couldn't view it. Did it seem like a recent photo? I ask because the photo of the sheriff used in early news reports looked younger (and clean-shaven) compared to a post-arrest pic.

Honestly, don't bother. That pic is years old. Her current pic, all over social.media and even some news outlets with her face blurred (lifted from his Facebook) shows her recently, and she is much taller and even has different color hair. Checkmite likely knows all this too, as well as her name, rank, and serial number, but I was curious where he was going with showing an old photo.
 
Have you then abandoned your objection that this information was only available to "Google miners"? Now it's just a common sense guess?

No, I meant the Google miners would be the ones who dug up more than the fact that he has a daughter. The ones who started the rumor circulating about a "relationship".

Jesus Christ is not here, Thermal. God cannot save you. You are locked in here with me.

:D

Your entire theorem rests on this judge being exactly not that - the whole statutory rape thing and all - so I don't see why my "lack of procedure" is somehow so outlandish by comparison to yours.

Posters assert that it's normal for a judge to have a young girls number on his phone. I think not. I further think any relationship with a teen girl is highly abnormal for a judge. Consistent, that. Do you get it now?

It wasn't the only thing I had snipped from that paragraph

Yes, I know. You kept talking about the sheriff and Whitesburg police. In my state, State police have jurisdiction in areas without municipal police, and the sheriff are usually court/jail liaisons. When you didnt address the obvious KSP, I knew what you were doing.


when I clip out something that even you recognize isn't really important it doesn't even register to you.

Of course it does. Sometimes it makes sense to snip out a fleshing-out to declutter. But you snipped out the actual right answer, and went into detail about the wrong answers. There's a difference.

Certainly. Or she might call someone she actually knows, that she feels also might have the authority to deal with the situation, and that she feels safer and more comfortable talking to.

Perfecy plausible, of course. Let's just hope that wasn't the case, considering how it worked out, and the judge wasn't the slobbering nitwit he would have to be in order to ride it that way.

Yes I know that in the face of my pushback...

Short answer: no. I think you're seeing too much meaning in that, maybe because I mentioned Lewinsky. Maybe she was too charged an example, but she was the first who sprang to mind.

But that's not how this tangent started. The explanation you offered for why this guy would be willing to kill the judge, admit to doing so, and even go as far as saying that he did it to protect his daughter BUT leave out the specific detail that the judge had been sexually abusing her, was do you think a father wants it broadcast that his daughter is the little girl that ***** old men? Don't act like this is something I'm injecting, and that this whole time your mindset has been strictly along the lines of, like, the mild irritation of being reminded every once in a while about an embarrassing childhood jape.

Come on, you literally said when a potential employer googles the daughters name, what international news story do you think might be the lingering first hit for decades? Why on earth do you think a hiring manager at who knows, AT&T or someplace, is going to even care that a news article from ten years ago says that her father went to jail for killing someone who abused her when she was a minor?

You might notice that well before this whole tangent started, I didn't refer to the judge or Stines by name, even though their names were in the OP. I have yet to use the judge's proper name. I'm actually pretty serious about attaching innocent names to well-known events.(Mickey boy does not exactly seem innocent, here).If that is not coming across well, that's probably my bad. But let's be honest here bro: we know the girls name, and could mail a birthday card to her front door on time. But no way in hell are either of us going to put that on blast.

Um, no - on this tangent I'm entertaining your assertion that it's a lie

Let me stop you right there: no, I don't assert that.

and on this particular point it does not matter what his statement was as long as it's not true. He could say he was cleaning his gun and it went off, for all the difference it makes. All that matters is that the known facts of the case don't match up with whatever he says, so the prosecution is absolutely going to investigate and surface the real details.

Your belief in the unerring investigative work of prosecutors is inspiring.

You believe the Twitter rumor had to have been started by someone with knowledge of the crime.

Again, let me stop you right there: no, I don't.

Not merely aware that the judge had been abusing Stines' daughter, but somehow aware or in a position to correctly deduce, within hours and possibly even minutes of the killing, that Stines had found out about it and that was the reason Stines did the murder. If this random stranger from nowhere was able to put this together and has loose enough lips to be willing to post as much to Twitter - the famous public viral social media website - the prosecution is going to be able to put it together too I can assure you, because it was clearly something that was known about, and by people who aren't the secret-keeping kind.

People can opine when they know something for sure, are pretty sure, or have only the flimsiest of suppositions. But regarding the prosecution: circumstancial beliefs won't hold up in court. If Stines and his daughter keep their mouths shut, and no one has proof other than "well they seem flirty together", then there is no prosecution and the girl can eventually be detached from it. As a father, I get Stine's reasoning here, if that's the way it happened.

{ETA:you refer often to abusing the daughter, and he's a pervert and molester. FWIW, if the rumor is as it claims to be, the relationship was "consensual", at least in the sense of her being above AoC and agreeing to it. Still illegal and creepy, but not "forced"}

But again: I'm not saying it must have happened, just that I'd be understanding if a fathers motivations if it were, more so than others here.

But he did give them reason, didn't he? Surely not willingly, but it's now known that he called or tried to call his daughter on the phone, seconds before the murder. You, ISF Forum poster who have immediately flagged that detail as vitally significant, only even know about it because the police investigator who seems to be in charge at the moment brought it up in court as an item of interest during the preliminary hearing, which was then reported on. You really think they're not going to look any further into it, especially now that they have to come up with a motive since he pleaded not guilty? Just going to take his word for it that she had nothing to do with it at all?

Maybe I'm not being clear. What I think is likely is that the shooting was in a blind rage, not planned. He got a confirmation immediately before or during those phone calls, and snapped. The "kidnapping my wife" would not have been part of the plan, just something ill-thought while he tried to process what he had done. Now he would have one goal: since he ended the judges life, and his own is over, run damage control so that his daughter can live as normally as possible. Does that make sense to you?
 
Last edited:
Thanks.



I couldn't view it. Did it seem like a recent photo? I ask because the photo of the sheriff used in early news reports looked younger (and clean-shaven) compared to a post-arrest pic.

Had to go to the wayback machine as I was getting a 403 error on the direct link. The archived site I saw was of a pudgy, clean shaven balding man of middle age (40-50) with his wife and early teenage daughter. It is possible the photo was taken long enough now that the daughter is a legal adult, but equally likely it was more recent than that.

PS forgot to mention I looked at a scrape taken last April.
 
It just struck me that if the sheriff tried to call his daughter on the judge's phone after she wouldn't pick up a call from his own phone then of course her number would be found on the judge's phone. It only shows that call was made, not that the number was previously on the phone.
 
Unless some outrageous new evidence comes up, the best he could hope for is an insanity plea for thinking that a judge was going to kidnap his family so he had to be executed on the spot instead of say,... arresting him?

Speaking of law enforcement, I can't picture a jury nullifying a sworn law enforcement officer for going rouge and carrying out his own executions. Like, no way in hell.

I guess he just saw red...
 
It just struck me that if the sheriff tried to call his daughter on the judge's phone after she wouldn't pick up a call from his own phone then of course her number would be found on the judge's phone. It only shows that call was made, not that the number was previously on the phone.

I've been thinking this too, and listening to the testimony, I can't quite tell if he is confirming that the girls nimber was *on* the phone, or *in* thr phone. *On* could mean just a number dialed out, but *in* would usually mean a stored contact.
 
Or...

The judges phone has software that pulls up the details for any number that is dialed...

Is that not available in the USA?

(I can see that there are many apps that do that for Apple and Android phones.)

e.g. Sherriff calls daughter from judge's phone.

Daughter calls back.

SmartCall displays the daughter's details.

I have SmartCall enabled on my phone, and it will display the name of anyone who calls me (unless they're a scammer/spammer using a fake number, so I ignore those calls.)

https://www.samsung.com/au/apps/smart-call/

Note that you can tag incoming numbers as scam etc. and that information becomes available to other users.
 
Or...

The judges phone has software that pulls up the details for any number that is dialed...

Is that not available in the USA?

Short answer: yes, in a variety of forms. That's how the investigators knew the call was in fact made from the judges phone to the daughters. What we don't know is if there was any history of calls between the judge and the daughter before Stines murdered him. Investigators know, but haven't released it publicly.

Caller ID, on any phone, tracks the number only, with its history and texts with that number.

Storing adds a name which displays, and maybe a picture and whether it's a cell or office number, things like that.

The name of an unsaved number doesn't display unless you manually put it there, with exceptions for plans which allow you to do so from the first dialing, which tend to be commercial callers, like a store or company.
 
Last edited:
Well, looks like people.com is providing some more detail to help us out!

First, yes the contact was stored in his phone. For the life of me I can't figure out why this matters so much but my assumption is that none of you have grown up in really small towns. Must only be a thing for us. Anyway, per the source:

Stamper said Stines’ daughter’s phone number was stored on Mullins’ phone...

Second, Stines is going to plead temporary insanity:

“It was not something that was planned and occurred in the heat of passion,” defense attorney Jeremy Bartley tells PEOPLE. “For us, the highest level of culpability should be manslaughter based on the partial defense of extreme emotional disturbance.”

Bold strategy, but I don't think it's going to work.

They aren't sure if something on the judges phone triggered the whole thing:

When questioned if the killing happened because of what Stines might have seen on the phone, Stamper responded: “It could be, but I don’t know that for a fact,”

Most of the article quotes\links to other articles from the AP and CNN. So most of this is apparently available.

I don't know that it changes anything, really, but more information is always nice.
 
Last edited:
Second, Stines is going to plead temporary insanity:



Bold strategy, but I don't think it's going to work.

That may depend on what set him off. If the judge was a pedo and did something to the daughter, it could. If the judge was just siding against him in a custody dispute, probably not.

I don't know that it changes anything, really, but more information is always nice.

Doesn't seem like a complex case, the shooting itself won't really be in doubt. It's all going to be about motive, so I would expect this to go to trial pretty soon. When we hear more useful info may come down to whether the defense tries to make their case before the trial or keeps it close to the chest.
 
Well, looks like people.com is providing some more detail to help us out!

Old info, really.

First, yes the contact was stored in his phone.

Frequent misquote from what Stamper actually said. He answered affirmatively that the girls number was on/in the judges phone. That could mean one outgoing dialed number (by Stine's) or a long term stored contact with call logs/texts. Stamper didn't clarify. Note that the People article says "per AP", and if you check the AP, reporting, they add the word "stored" that Stamper never used.

For the life of me I can't figure out why this matters so much but my assumption is that none of you have grown up in really small towns. Must only be a thing for us. Anyway, per the source:

It may well turn out that the judge picked up the girl from soccer practice or whatever as a favor to his sheriff buddy, and used her number to text her when and where he'd be doing so.Small town, plausible enough, as you say.

But that the sheriff called her, then opened fire, kinda sorta suggests that there was something darker about their connection. Something Stines would murder in cold blood over. Considering the Twitter rumor, that's got some more teeth than usual.

Second, Stines is going to plead temporary insanity:

Not quite. Temporary insanity requires ,as I think you said earlier, an expert evaluation. Extreme emotional distress can be found standalone by a jury,and at least get murder and the death penalty off the table.

Bold strategy, but I don't think it's going to work.

They aren't sure if something on the judges phone triggered the whole thing:

Most of the article quotes\links to other articles from the AP and CNN. So most of this is apparently available.

I don't know that it changes anything, really, but more information is always nice.

It's super weird that Stamper kept claiming he only had superficial discussions before the hearing. Many of his answers were a long the lines of "I haven't talked to my people yet". He had days to prep; seems like he could have dedicated 5 minutes or so to getting the short version, but since it was only a preliminary hearing, I guess it's a good strategy to not give the defense too much to work with.
 
It's super weird that Stamper kept claiming he only had superficial discussions before the hearing. Many of his answers were a long the lines of "I haven't talked to my people yet". He had days to prep; seems like he could have dedicated 5 minutes or so to getting the short version, but since it was only a preliminary hearing, I guess it's a good strategy to not give the defense too much to work with.

I presume you mean the prosecution. I expect that's part of it, but there also may be an aspect of the lawyer not wanting to know too much too early. Not only are lawyers not allowed to lie to the court, they're also not allowed to let witnesses (including their own client) make what the lawyer knows is a lie. That means that if the client tells the lawyer that they did something, the lawyer cannot let the client go on the stand and testify that they didn't. So if claiming they didn't is important to the defense, the lawyer doesn't want to hear from the client that they did that thing. In other words, sometimes the lawyer doesn't want to know everything from the client, because that can constrain what the lawyer can argue. The defendant can lie in their own defense only as long as the defense lawyer doesn't know it's a lie.

So in a situation like this, what I think may be happening is that the lawyer is only discussing the absolutely necessary stuff (ie, how do you want to plead) until he sees some results of the investigation. Then he can go to the client and inform the client of what sort of things they might or might not be able to argue, and then get the client's version of events, so that what the client then tells him will have less chance of interfering with their defense.
 
I presume you mean the prosecution. I expect that's part of it, but there also may be an aspect of the lawyer not wanting to know too much too early. Not only are lawyers not allowed to lie to the court, they're also not allowed to let witnesses (including their own client) make what the lawyer knows is a lie. That means that if the client tells the lawyer that they did something, the lawyer cannot let the client go on the stand and testify that they didn't. So if claiming they didn't is important to the defense, the lawyer doesn't want to hear from the client that they did that thing. In other words, sometimes the lawyer doesn't want to know everything from the client, because that can constrain what the lawyer can argue. The defendant can lie in their own defense only as long as the defense lawyer doesn't know it's a lie.

So in a situation like this, what I think may be happening is that the lawyer is only discussing the absolutely necessary stuff (ie, how do you want to plead) until he sees some results of the investigation. Then he can go to the client and inform the client of what sort of things they might or might not be able to argue, and then get the client's version of events, so that what the client then tells him will have less chance of interfering with their defense.

Stamper was under cross by the defense when he answered with the quotes being discussed. As I heard him, he was being evasive and vague. The defense politely needed him about why he hadn't spoken to his investigators.

The defense also tried to get the charge to manslaughter, citing the extreme emotional distress angle early on. For Stampers part, I would assume it's CYA to not say anything conclusive till everything is done. For instance, they say they have been in the judges and girls phones. They know 100% full and well what was there, with a couple clicks. But Stamper said the contents of Stines and the judges phones were still being "downloaded" days later. Maybe they want to check for deleted information first, before saying anything about what was superficially seen.
 
Stamper was under cross by the defense when he answered with the quotes being discussed. As I heard him, he was being evasive and vague. The defense politely needed him about why he hadn't spoken to his investigators.

For some reason I had it in my head that Stamper was the defense lawyer, so yeah, mixup there. My previous post still applies to the defense, but obviously not to Stamper.
 
For some reason I had it in my head that Stamper was the defense lawyer, so yeah, mixup there.

Np

My previous post still applies to the defense, but obviously not to Stamper.

As I'm reading it, the defense only had one objective at this preliminary hearing: get murder and the death penalty off the table. They surely know that their boy done executed an unarmed man, and particularly savagely, and on clear video, so he's going down one way or the other. Their best shot is to have it moved to manslaughter, so he keeps breathing. Extreme emotional distress would be the most likely avenue, so they pump the investigator for whatever he will cop to in the interests of supporting an improper relationship with the underage daughter.
 
Last edited:
But Stamper said the contents of Stines and the judges phones were still being "downloaded" days later. Maybe they want to check for deleted information first, before saying anything about what was superficially seen.

I'd bet they would need to get warrants as well. Even with the judge being deceased they would need some form of sign off to get into the phone. If the phone is encrypted or locked and no one knows the key then it would require manufacturer intervention as well. I doubt the 3 man department, or the local\county police, have an advanced IT team to pull deleted data off the devices. I'm assuming the FBI or someone on that level is doing the forensic recovery.
 
I'd bet they would need to get warrants as well. Even with the judge being deceased they would need some form of sign off to get into the phone. If the phone is encrypted or locked and no one knows the key then it would require manufacturer intervention as well. I doubt the 3 man department, or the local\county police, have an advanced IT team to pull deleted data off the devices. I'm assuming the FBI or someone on that level is doing the forensic recovery.

Yeah, agreed. If they were able to see that an outgoing call was made, and that would have at least been a little while after the murder, I assume it's not locked? But deleted texts are forever,and would need bigger boys to do it. The Kentucky State police are running the investigation, but they surely have their warrant procedures to muddle through.
 
Yeah, agreed. If they were able to see that an outgoing call was made, and that would have at least been a little while after the murder, I assume it's not locked?

I guess I'm not sure. I don't know if they personally saw it, depended on the video, or were told during the interview with Sheriff Shooty Pants.
 
I guess I'm not sure. I don't know if they personally saw it, depended on the video, or were told during the interview with Sheriff Shooty Pants.

Stamper testified that they had examined the contents of both phones, and looked at the daughter's while interviewing her (but interestingly, didn't take it as evidence. Maybe they legally couldn't at this stage), so they seemed to have actually seen something. Mickey boy is keeping his mouth shut tight, of I am reading this correctly.
 
I'd bet they would need to get warrants as well. Even with the judge being deceased they would need some form of sign off to get into the phone.

In a case like this, I think you could probably get the necessary warrant really fast. And reasonably so, too. After all, there's no uncertainty about who shot whom, and the phones are obviously relevant, so there's no reason for a judge not to sign a warrant for both. And judges are likely to be really sympathetic to law enforcement efforts to investigate the killing of another judge. I doubt that took more than a couple of hours.

If the phone is encrypted or locked and no one knows the key then it would require manufacturer intervention as well.

If it's a fingerprint unlock then it's easy. You can't be compelled to provide a password (5th amendment), but you can be compelled to provide your fingerprints.

I doubt the 3 man department, or the local\county police, have an advanced IT team to pull deleted data off the devices. I'm assuming the FBI or someone on that level is doing the forensic recovery.

There are commercial software packages to do that sort of thing so that no particular expertise is required. Unless someone is deliberately trying to cover their tracks, recovering deleted files is actually pretty simple. But considering it was a judge that was killed, they might rope in expertise from the FBI or (I think more likely) state-level law enforcement agencies.
 
If it's a fingerprint unlock then it's easy. You can't be compelled to provide a password (5th amendment), but you can be compelled to provide your fingerprints

Super easy, here. You just go down to the morgue and say "hey Bob, we're going to need that right thumb for a few days... "

*later that day* "aw ****, Bob, I think he's left handed"
 
Last edited:
Super easy, here. You just go down to the morgue and say "hey Bob, we're going to need that right thumb for a few days... "

*later that day* "aw ****, Bob, I think he's left handed"

Amateur mistake. You don't bring the thumb to the phone, you bring the phone to the thumb.
 
In a case like this, I think you could probably get the necessary warrant really fast. And reasonably so, too. After all, there's no uncertainty about who shot whom, and the phones are obviously relevant, so there's no reason for a judge not to sign a warrant for both. And judges are likely to be really sympathetic to law enforcement efforts to investigate the killing of another judge. I doubt that took more than a couple of hours.

No doubt, I'm sure it wasn't tough to get. I don't know what the process for entering the request for the warrant, or the ins and outs go but I'd bet they got what they needed pretty quickly.

If it's a fingerprint unlock then it's easy. You can't be compelled to provide a password (5th amendment), but you can be compelled to provide your fingerprints.

I am just going off of personal experience but we don't allow thumb prints or facial recognition for officer phones for the exact reasons you mentioned. It HAS to be a PIN or pattern. If an officer gets jeopardized then the criminal can easily unlock their device and set an ambush, or simply get access to the phone numbers of multiple other officers\judges since they're pre-loaded in a contact list for every officer phone.

Then again, small town, probably not huge on policies or security. I'm just throwing **** out there.

There are commercial software packages to do that sort of thing so that no particular expertise is required. Unless someone is deliberately trying to cover their tracks, recovering deleted files is actually pretty simple. But considering it was a judge that was killed, they might rope in expertise from the FBI or (I think more likely) state-level law enforcement agencies.

Yeah, we use cellebrite for our shop but the laptop with the software has to come from the state, and there has to be a warrant to use it. As you said, I'm sure the warrant isn't a problem. I also don't know if it can obtain messages from encrypted apps. One instance comes to mind where the "user" had a password to access a WhatsApp style messaging system, might have even been WhatsApp and they couldn't recover the messages in a usable form. I want to say there was a case with the San Bernadino shooters where they couldn't get into one of their phones too? It's been awhile.

This slow drip stuff kind of sucks. The fact they didn't take the daughter's phone is a bit odd with regards to the having an affair with the judge theory. Perhaps they took it and cloned it, then gave it back. You'd think with a case like this they'd want to hold on to it though, if for no other reason than an evidence chain or so data isn't deleted. Generally everything is recoverable but that is, by no means, always the case.
 
Last edited:
Without going too far out on a limb, I'd guess that they didn't take the daughters phone because at this time, it's not evidence. The contact info presumably is exactly what the other two phones had. It might indicate that there was nothing there but records of an unanswered call, from each of the two men's phones, in which case they wouldn't need it at that time. If a theory builds that can be demonstrated to a judge at a later time, it might be enough for a warrant then, but that would be a later bridge. Right now, she's just a kid who's phone rang.
 
It's kind of quaint that our legal system requires a hearing to determine if there is a probability that Stines in fact killed the judge.

Dozens of people, many of whom have billable hours running, block out the day to play back video of the murder happening on clear video. Then they consider whether there is cause to charge him. Then a grand jury gets to convene and wonder about the same thing given the same evidence.

I mean, obviously there are cases where things are not so cut and dry, but surely there could be a streamlined summary judgement for such an in your face case? One can't really complain about the cost and time burned up in litigation when they are wasting both at this magnitude.
 
Stines' atty says he expects a full acquittal at trial. Really!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_ZTfuDQlSw

Aaaaaand the betting window is open! I'm gonna go ahead and say the limit approaches zero for any argument at all resulting in an aquittal. Like, even theoretically. This defense attorney may be planning on presenting the famed SovCit Defense, where he asserts that both the defendant and his representation are not subject to some arbitrary "state laws" which prevent summary execution in the place of work. Also that they are both slobbering idiots with no grasp on right and wrong, and that the attorney got his law degree by responding to an ad found on a pack of matches.
 
Stines' atty says he expects a full acquittal at trial. Really!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_ZTfuDQlSw

What were you expecting? The lawyer's job is to represent their client. And they don't always get to choose their client either. So if you've got a bad case you need to defend, you still have to defend it. He cannot ethically say, yeah, my client is guilty and will probably be convicted, even if that's what he thinks. That's not his job, that's not his role.
 
I understand that. Still.. It's kinda hard to see what kind of defence he would go for that would result in an acquittal, unless he's going for jury nullification. There is no doubt that he did it, and no affirmative defence that I can see as applying. Of which there are very few that would apply to a homicide. There are plenty of affirmative defences for contracts and such, but very few that apply to a homicide.

In fact the only one that I can even vaguely see as possible to argue is Justification (aka, Necessity/Self-defense): a defence whereby it must be proven that the defendant’s actions were necessary to protect himself or others from harm. But that one only applies to limited circumstances where the harm is unlawful, imminent, and impending. Which was obviously neither the case for him nor for his daughter.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom