Follow the WDRB Newsroom, Reporters and Anchors.More >>
Tweets from the WDRB Newsroom, Reporters and Anchors.More >>
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- Accusations and bitter battles continue to rule the Barbara Shanklin ethics trial, as defense attorney Aubrey Williams claims the advising council is against him, and Shanklin questions the fairness of the hearings.
It was an interesting start to Shanklin's second day on the stand, as attorneys on both sides went at it yet again.
A recorded phone call between Barbara Shanklin and the former instructor of the ex-offender program, Linda Haywood, was first to come into question Tuesday. Shanklin says she recorded the phone call because she believed Haywood was lying about returning the funds she received through the ex-offender program. "I didn't know what she was up to, and I wasn't going to take a chance," said Shanklin.
But prosecutor David Tachau questioned how Shanklin didn't ask the instructor flat out if she paid her back, when recording her confession could be her ticket to a favorable outcome.
The questioning quickly turned counsel against counsel in the fifth day of her ethics hearing: "So you had time to think about this call before you recorded her?" asked Tachau.
"Of course she had, she said the lady had lied, she was stealing, you know that I told you, Mr. Chair, that the lady was lying," said Williams.
Things quickly escalated moments later as Shanklin's attorney, Aubrey Williams, put words in his client's mouth as she went to answer Tachau's question. "Yes, say yes, he said."
Proceedings eventually continued, and Shanklin continuously told the council court she "borrowed money from Peter to pay Paul." But at least one council member questioned the fact that it was an even exchange of funds. "In the documents we've been provided, borrow implies return, and nothing in the documents that we have been provided indicates that was in fact the case," said district 11 council member Kevin Kramer.
Shanklin claims the discrepancies in financial statements come from cash re-payments.
She also claims that despite the fact that there is no evidence convicts attended the class, she believed the ex-offender program was legitimate because it "improved quality of life" in the community.