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.
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?