FORCEFIELD ANALYSIS #1 RHONDA HINSON

I'm going to try something new here. A lot of the cases which are still unsolved at times contain a great deal of information thrown at the viewer in a haphazard fashion ranging from statements made by family members & police to potential motives behind the mystery to physical evidence.

I am going to attempt to organize this into some sort of cohesive unit in order to give a clearer perspective on the case. This is not an attempt to solve any of these cases but instead generate a plausible viable theory as to what happened.

This first case to be looked at since it has been brought up yet again is the case of Rhonda Hinson.

BACKGROUND

On the evening of Tuesday, December 22, 1981, Rhonda Hinson attended her office's (Hickory Steel Company) Christmas party at the American Legion Hut in Hickory. After leaving the party around midnight, she stopped by a friend's house to pick up her vehicle and call her boyfriend.

After leaving the friend's residence, Rhonda drove her beige Datsun 210 two-door west on Interstate 40 and exited onto the Mineral Springs Mountain/Highway 350 off-ramp. She turned right (north) and began traveling up a steep hill toward her home when a high powered rifle projectile was fired into the vehicle. The bullet entered the Datsun through the trunk and continued through the back seat and driver's side seat, entering Rhonda's back and piercing her lung and heart.

THE SEGMENT

UM profiled this case in 1989. The main gist of the segment seemed to present a causal link between the death of Ms. Hinson and her strange behavior prior to her death. This behavior included taking excessive amounts of showers to bizarre conversations she had with her parents prior to her death.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Rhonda Hinson had recently begun working at a new job at the Hickory Steel Company. Shortly before Christmas of 1981 she began displaying paranoid behavior which ranged from not wanting to drive alone in her car to taking excessive showers sometimes in the middle of the night. It was stressed in the segment that the taking of showers in the manner that Rhonda Hinson did that she might have been the victim of some type of sexual abuse.

Around this same time Rhonda Hinson asked her mother "if it was ever alright to date a married man". This comment took Rhonda's mother by surprised and bolstered the theory that whatever was bothering Rhonda prior to her death had some type of romantic/sexual overtones.

VARIOUS THEORIES

- The main theory surrounding the Rhonda Hinson case as far as the public knows is that a possible motive behind her death is that perhaps she was going to blow the whistle on an affair she might have been having with possibly a married man.

- Due to the manner in which Rhonda was killed it is suspected that her killer was either extremely lucky or an expert marksmen or a possible hitman hired to kill Rhonda.

- After Rhonda was shot her car rolled off the road and she was found lying in a ditch beside the open driver's side door of her Datsun. She was less than a mile from the home she shared with her parents in Valdese.

- A witness under hypnosis noticed a man pulling Rhonda out of her vehicle after she had been shot. Since Rhonda died instantly after she was shot she was already dead at the time the unknown man pulled her from the car. This man has never been identified although he did leave fingerprints on Rhonda's vehicle. It is also unknown if the mystery man is Rhonda's killer or simply a passer by who happened by the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police.

- The same witness also recalled several mysterious cars parked near the area where Rhonda was shot in the hours prior to the murder. This leads to speculation that Rhonda's death was pre-meditated and she was stalked on the night of her death.

SYNOPSIS AND ANALYSIS

- This is a very interesting case and one has to wonder first off if Rhonda indeed was carrying a heavy burden on her shoulders prior to her death why she didn't mention it to anyone? This seems to be a common pattern with a lot of the segments on the show and leaves me to wonder first off is the viewer being kept in the dark on certain aspects regarding the victim's state of mind prior to her death.

- Assuming that the motive behind Rhonda's murder was an affair she was having it has been generally assumed that this affair somehow ties back to Rhonda's place of work being that her bizarre behavior began after taking her job.

- The problem with this theory is that if indeed the man who left his prints on Ms. Hinson's car the night of her murder was in fact the killer (as I theorize it is) any minor league sleuth will tell you that the police HAD to have compared them to all of Rhonda's male co-workers at the Steel Company. Since it was stated during the segment that there had been no matches for the prints we can draw a conclusion that they didn't match anyone at Rhonda's place of work for if they did, that person would be the prime suspect.

- "Perfect Shot"/fingerprints - The combination of the expert shot and the fingerprints doesn't gel right in my mind. If a hitman was indeed hired to kill Rhonda (as the nature of the much talked about "perfect shot" leads one to believe) why would someone who has probably murdered people in the past be naive enough to leave his fingerprints on the car. An experienced hitman would leave as little physical evidence at the crime scene as possible. A novice would not!

- The person who murdered Rhonda Hinson after firing the fatal shot had no idea whether he had killed Ms. Hinson since the shot was apparently fired from some distance from behind. All the killed saw was Rhonda's car barrelling off the road. He had no idea whether he

A) had spooked Rhonda Hinson causing her to roll off the road

B) had injured Rhonda Hinson causing her to roll off the road

C) had killed Rhonda Hinson causing her to roll off the road

- This leads me to believe that the killer (hitman or novice) went to Rhonda's car after it rolled off the road to make sure he had killed Rhonda. Therefore I find it highly unlikely that it was a passer by who the witness saw near Rhonda's car. This theory is bolstered by the fact that if the man the witness saw had nothing to do with Ms. Hinson's death why hasn't he ever come forward himself. It is possible that this person (if he is not the killer) witnessed the actual shooting and might have crucial information on the case.

- My final analysis is that the killer of Rhonda Hinson was someone she knew. Although it is impossible to tell how they first crossed paths I doubt Rhonda was killed by a hitman or someone she did not know. The man who killed Rhonda had no idea at first whether or not he was successful in his attempt to take her life. Therefore he went over to her car to verify her condition and being a novice also left physical evidence on the vehicle before fleeing the scene. It should be added that being a novice he took a risky chance in being spotted by witnesses in approaching Hinson's car after the shooting.

- Other theories are of course possible as I stated at the start this IS NOT an attempt to SOLVE THE CASE but an attempt to organize all the available data. The main questions that still need to be answered are obvious

1) Who had a motive to kill Rhonda Hinson?

2) How did this person figure into her life? - It is very probable that Hinson's murderer had nothing to do with her place of work but was involved in her life on some other level.

Finally this person HAD to have prior knowledge that Hinson was going to be heading home at that time on that evening on that road. It is possible that the killer waited until Rhonda dropped her companions off prior to zeroing in on Ms. Hinson. This would make sense as the killer would not want any witnesses or other victims as he was intending to kill one person: Rhonda Hinson.

Also it is crucial to note as with all murder cases and this is a direct lift from The Burke County Sheriff's Office: Throughout the years, hundreds of persons have been interviewed by investigators assigned to the case. The file on the Hinson murder contains thousands of documents and has expanded to fill several filing cabinets. Potential suspects and witnesses have been polygraphed; psychics have been called in to assist; the crime scene and evidence have been analyzed and re-analyzed.

If so much evidence has been gathered it it obvious that there is much more information on this case than provided in the short UM segment. While it is understandable why this information is not available to the general public, it is very possible that the true story behind the events of 5-22-81 lie somewhere in those filing cabinets waiting for someone to connect the dots just the right way.

Later.

I think it's possible that if she was having an affair with a married man as hinted at by the "Rhonda Hinson asked her mother "if it was ever alright to date a married man"" that the mans wife could have had her killed. Whether that's true or not it may not have been the shooter that was seen by her car. It might have been someone who noticed her car and stopped to see if she was alright and when they saw that she wasn't decided that they didn't want to get involved. (Remember the case where that couple heard their neighbor screaming like she was being hurt and they did nothing because they did not want to get involved? That one always disturbed me but it goes to show that people don't always get involved.) Even if the police wanted to get fingerprints from everyone she knew if someone didn't want to give them their prints could they force them to without probable cause? Would they actually go around to everyone she knew and ask for prints? I'm not trying to say any of that is what happened because I have no idea really, those are just the questions and thoughts that popped into my head after reading your post. It would be interesting to have more information on a lot of these cases.
Another thought is that although you would think that it was someone who knew her or was hired to do this it is possible that it was a stranger who randomly picked her out. What made me think of this possibility was a case on another show (Forensic Files or one like it sorry I don't have a better memory) where the murderer shot his victims, including a young man who went out to hunt alone as was his routine, from a distance and he didn't personally know any of them. I think all of his victims may have been hunters alone in or around the woods but like I said my memory isn't great.

Very interesting Dante. You must have did some additional research as I don't remember them saying that Rhonda had a boyfriend. I think there are two possibilities as to why she was shot. First it could have been someone out causing trouble and randomly shot at her car. Remember the "Carol" case? She was shot in the face for absolutely no reason by someone she didn't know. Secondly if she was having an affair with a married man, like stated before she could have threatened to come clean about it and he could have shot at her car as a scare tactic. Not necessarily meaning to kill her (but of course thats always a possibility when you fire a gun) but as a threat to not confess the affair. Maybe he was shocked that it actually struck and killed her and thats why he went over to check on her. Actually if her murder would have been more recent with the world of forensics they would have been able to garner more clues I believe. For instance I've seen a few Forensic Files where they actually able to extract fingerprints from skin or clothes of victims using heated super glue. They may have been able to get a fingerprint off of Rhonda that would match the man who was seen at her car.

The Unsolved Mysteries segment said that Rhonda left the Christmas party with two friends IN HER CAR who she was responsible for dropping off before driving home herself. DarkDante, where did you read that she went to a friends house to pick up her vehicle and call her boyfriend? Maybe some facts got messed up in the process of recreating the story. With the Unsolved Mysteries reenactment, I assumed that Rhonda's killer probably waited in hiding out in the parking lot of the office Christmas party for her to leave, followed her as she dropped off her friends and waited for her to be alone before attempting to kill her. But after reading those facts you posted, I'm thinking the killer probably knew her enough to know the route she took home from work and waited for her on the side of the road for her to drive by. If she had pulled off to the side of the road to talk to her killer, she MUST have known him. I have a hard time believing she would have pulled over to talk to a complete stranger at 1:00 in the morning. But then, those were somewhat more innocent times, who knows?

This whole affair theory could have been well researched if the police simply talked to Rhonda's closest friends, IMO. If she was having an affair, I would think she would have confided in a friend that was close to her about it.

Most of the information gleaned for the background was found on the page that Burke County has on the case. This can be easily located on the links section of this site.

The scene where Rhonda is stopped by someone as she turns off the interstate, which shows them arguing before she speeds off and is shot, is actually information that was given to the family by a psychic. The psychic said she "saw" a scene where Rhonda saw someone she knew standing in the middle of the road holding a coat or blanket. She stopped her car and argued with the man for a minute or two. When the coat or blanket slipped enough that she could see the gun underneath it, she sped off and was shot at and killed.

There was another scene that was cut out, showing Rhonda having a conversation with her father. They used a little of the vocals dubbed over scene where they were driving together. In the longer scene, they went to the gas station near their house. She purposefully paused before getting out of the car and said she had something to tell her father but was afraid to. He could see she was struggling with it and told her no matter what it was, she could tell him. She paused for a while, looking pained, and then said, "I'll think about it." That was a few days before she was killed. That scene came from info provided by her dad.

The scene where she is staring out her bedroom window was supposed to have occurred between 4 and 5 am. Her Dad worked at a bakery and he reported often seeing her staring out the window like that when he went to work before 5 am. This started around the same time she was afraid to drive to town and asked him to ride with her whenever she had to go somewhere. This was also according to her dad.

And the guy in the reenactment who plays the part of the witness who saw her car along the side of the road and assumed the couple was fighting and drove off, wasn't an actor. He was the real witness who was hypnotized. I thought it was neat that they had the actual witness playing himself in the reenactment.

in a case this old, probably the only way to solve the case is for someone who was actually involved to finally come forward and share information....i find it hard to believe it was a "random" shooting. it's very sad it's gone on this long, i feel very sorry for her parents. somewhere out there though, this must be weighing on someone's mind. i thought it was interesting that the witness, under hypnosis, remembered that there were 2 cars at the scene.
(thanks for the DVD crystaldawn !!)

This whole affair theory could have been well researched if the police simply talked to Rhonda's closest friends, IMO. If she was having an affair, I would think she would have confided in a friend that was close to her about it.

As far as the affair theory goes, it's possible that Rhonda herself was having an affair that was so secret that no one close to her knew about it. If she had been having an affair, she may have broken it off, or was on the verge of doing so, only to end up dead. She may very well have dated a man who wasn't known to any of her friends or family, and that his identity remains a mystery because of it.

In any case, I believe Rhonda knew about an affair, whether she herself was involved in one or knew of someone who was. The killer may have feared that she would bring this affair to light, and killed her to ensure that she never would.

the affair part may have been true...it just seems so strange that in a small town no one saw or heard anything...i hope the police took their search to other surrounding towns.

her mom and dad both felt that she had something weighing on her mind. that's probably one of the hardest things for them is they didn't question her more.

I don't think Rhonda was having an affair. I think quite possibly she was being sexually harrassed on the job by a married man. I work in HR and some of the instances I've seen brought to my desk would make even me feel dirty. There could have been unwanted advances, groping...and dare to say it, she could even possibly beeen raped. Regardless, I think Rhonda had reached a point where enough was enough and maybe she was going to say something and maybe this person either killed her or hired someone to kill her to keeep silent.


But the whole theory of a hired hitman makes me wonder if the killer had a high standing within the community. Maybe the person wasn't so much worried about the wife finding out as opposed to their reputation going down the tubes...

I just got done watching this segment (again!) and it sounded like where she was driving on that road was out in the woods. What if it was some random night poacher (hence the high powered rifle), shot at something, and then heard her car screech off the road. He ran down to the road, to find that he hit someone with the bullet, tried to help by pulling her out of the car, but she was already dead. Then he just took off.

The professional hit man story seemed unlikely to me because it was too savvy of a job for a 19 year old to be involved and absolutely no one, friends or family, knew what she might have gotten involved with. And why would a hit man pull her from the car when there were passing cars on the same road?
She would have had to have told someone if she was having an affair....everyone talks in small towns and so do teenage girls.

Any thoughts...

I still say she may have been sexually harassed which may have resulted in a rape/attempted rape.

I think that at her age, it's unlikely a hit man was involved. I think it's more likely that it was a relationship, possibly with an older guy, that went bad. In that area of the country, hunting and guns are part of a lot of households...I am more inclined to believe that someone meant to "scare" her and it went horribly wrong. The saddest thing of all, is that somewhere, there are at least 2 people (judging from the cars seen there that night) that know what happened and have kept quiet all these years.

If it was in fact the killer who went over to check on her as opposed to a passerby, it would lead me to believe that the killer was doing so to ensure she was dead. A random shooter, in my opinion, would have been a lot more likely to immediately flee the scene as opposed to a hit man or somebody who had intentions on killing Rhonda. I would have a hard time believing it was a random shooting, there are just too many things that happened before the shooting, which makes me think it was premeditated.

The vision that the psychic had seems to fit. I don't believe every psychic in the world, but most of the ones that have been profiled on UM over the years seem to be credible. If Rhonda had pulled over to the side of the road, I believe it must have been someone she was not afraid of. A previous poster correctly stated that times were more innocent back then, but given the nervousness Rhonda had in the weeks prior to the incident makes me believe she wouldn't have pulled over for a stranger, particluarly at 1 a.m. in the morning.

My instinct tells me that the passerby was not the killer. It is possible that he wasn't even sure that a shooting had taken place, but when he found out that one had, he decided to bail. He might have even tried to assist Rhonda, but realizing his prints were on the car, decided to flee to avoid being considered a suspect.

there were, apparently, two cars witnessed at the scene....it may be possible that the second car to arrive was involved in the crime also...(maybe a "friend" helping a "friend")..i just find it hard to believe that TWO people came across this crime scene and both chose to hide the evidence and neither one called the police OR came forward.

This is a case where there are so many possiblities. Was Rhonda seeing a married man and when it went sour she was murdered? Did a jealous wife hire a hitman to kill her? As people have said before, the person that shot her either was incredibly lucky or they were a great shot and had great marksmanship. Somehow the person who killed her was able to flag her down and get her to stop. He was then able to shoot and it hit and killed her and her car rolled back to the position where the eyewitness saw it and where the police would find it. However who was the man the witness saw hovering by her car? The car the eyewitness saw parked down the road was most likely the car of the man the eyewitness saw. I think the blue car and its occupants were also involved in some way.

My theory is that she was having an affair....reluctantly. I think it was a situation where she was new at this place and from what I gather may have been her first real job in the business world. She could have met a very married someone there probably in management who she befriended. This person could have made her feel as though she had to sleep with him in order to keep her job or even to get a better position there. I think Rhonda in the beginning went along with it feeling guilt and disgust before realizing that she couldn't do it anymore. I think once the guy saw she was serious, rather than getting her out of the job, he would kill her or arranged for her to be killed instead.

Well this is the case that I find just truly interesting. I do think it was someone Rhonda knew that killed her. I do think that whoever this person was, was obviously not a professional killer. He made several mistakes. Somehow he has never been arrested for anything else and I am sure has been extra careful to avoid being arrest. So we know there was a chevelle seen speeding away from the murder seen and also a trans am seen parked down the road from Rhonda's car. I dont know what to think about all of this. I am thinking about writing to the Burke county sheriff's department to see if I can get copies of the police reports on this case.

In my opinion what this case needs is a pair of fresh eyes. This has to be one of the most discussed cases on this forum and everytime we all discuss it it seems that we all seem to be grasping at straws trying to fit this very complex jigsaw together while missing some crucial pieces.

I think in a lot of ways the same must be said of the investigators of this nearly thirty year old case. They have had almost thirty years to assemble information but from at least of what we know have progressed little in narrowing down a list of potential suspects.

The file cabinet full of documents is of course very intriguing and I will again restate my claim that somewhere in that cabinet lies the answers to this mystery and is just waiting for the right person to connect the dots.

I remember an UM segment about the murder of a Asian American man where the investigators presented the case to a number of criminal justice students and the students were actually able to help provide some new scenerios of what may have happened the night of the murder. I would think the Rhonda Hinson case would be an excellent case to present to such a test group whether it be some type of task force or a group of criminal justice students or perhaps maybe its time for some new investigators to look into this mystery.

I'm not trying to put down the investigators who have been working on the Hinson case for years as I'm sure they've done the best they can do. But at the same time its fairly obvious to me that these investigators are likely not going to be the ones to solve the Hinson case anytime soon. This is because despite wealth of information they have at their disposal in twenty years they really haven't made much progress at all.

So I would certainly say its time for a new pair of eyes to take a long hard look at this case. I think in this thread alone (with the limited information we have) we all have fleshed out several probable scenerios about what happened to Rhonda Hinson that night. Imagine what we could come up with if we had all the facts in front of us ;)

EDIT: I would also like to add that I am well aware that solving a murder case isn't only about batting about theories or putting forth scenerios like we do non-stop on this forum. However, every journey begins with a single step and I think that this case especially there is something lacking in the police investigation. I have no doubt they want to solve this mystery but also have no doubt that after all this time has passed the investigators working on this case seem to be spinning their wheels and not getting anywhere.

Well this case is so tough and frustrating. It is just one of those cases where the killer is probably a local resident and has been right under the cops noses yet they cant put a finger on who did it. It has to be very frustrating. DD you did do the thing from the sheriff's department that was very informative. However I was curious what your opinions were on this?

What if Rhonda's killer was a police officer?

Maybe she HAD a sexual relationship of some kind with someone who she felt she had to appease but at the same time felt disgusted in doing so. Or on the other hand, maybe she simply developed a minor case of OCD out of the blue with absolutely no connection to that. Which is kind of hard to believe considering her sudden paranoia. However, for some reason, I highly doubt that an issue having had nothing to do with her but ultimately knew about it having to do with some else, would've had as much of an effect as it would if she were in fact the one involved. Suppose rumors began to spread and in order to keep her from cracking under the pressure of those rumors, she was murdered.

This is a link to an article from a North Carolina newspaper dated June 19th 2005 but I didn't see it referenced and found it interesting.

http://www.morganton.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=MNH/MGArticle/MNH_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783370510&path=!frontpage

I am only quoting part of it.

Morganton - The Rhonda Hinson murder case has frustrated investigators for nearly 24 years. The Burke County Sheriff's Office may be getting closer to solving it.
"In the last couple of years we've developed some suspects," said Sheriff John T. McDevitt. "We've been looking at the case from a new angle."
Morganton-Burke Crimestoppers is also trying something new. They're hoping to get a crucial tip by temporarily raising its reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case.

Apparently they didn't get the tip they hoped for but I found it interesting that they had developed some suspects. Hopefully one day this will be solved.

Hi to all. I live about 10 min. away from where this happened. I truly believe this is a case that is just a cover up for all higher up people. So many rumors surrounding just a few people they never searched or questioned. Also a gun shop near by that reported a gun missing after this happened Can't remember if it was broken into or just reported it missing But I'm sure there not far away. fingerprints have they checked them lately maybe they would find a match now maybe that person didn't have a record then but its possibly different or are they missing from evidence?

Well, I do think the cops probably have a general idea of who did this despite saying they havent identified the prints. It is probably just something to where they dont have the evidence to say their name in public. It wouldnt surprise me though if they never even ran the prints or if they only ran them against all fingerprints in the system from Burke County. I have a friend that knows a cop and he said that a lot of times the cops, at least in southern Minnesota dont even check for active warrants with people they pull over and just basic stuff like that so it could be they have never even ran the prints against the nationwide database and just ran it against their prints at the Burke County Sheriff's Department. I am pretty sure the killer was someone local, someone that has probably been under the cops noses the whole time.

There were several theories and rumors that the crew were batting about while they were filming the episode that weren't shared in the show. One involved a police cover-up. Partly because of many investigative procedures that were blatantly overlooked. The missing gun was talked about. As was the robbery of a gun from a local gunshop. There was a small lake very near the murder site that wasn't searched for the gun. Many thought dredging the lake would have found the weapon. The boyfriend that Rhonda had broken up with prior to the murder had a father who was a local minister (and an avid hunter). One theory involved him being the possible "molester", with her murder being to avoid her coming out and naming him and publically shaming him. Fingerprints were never taken of the ex-boyfriend, or his father. It was implied they had a relation in the police department, but who wasn't directly involved in the case. This helped support the "cover-up" theory.

The director and crew had access to more data than was portrayed in the reenactment. I don't know how much of the rumors and theories the crew were discussing during the filming were based on facts and what was their own suppositions.

I really like the idea of a new group of people weeding through all the data and tips to see if there was something that was overlooked.

Well, I do think the cops probably have a general idea of who did this despite saying they havent identified the prints. It is probably just something to where they dont have the evidence to say their name in public.

Especially since they obviously don't want to create a situation where the general public knows who the suspect is before the suspect him/herself does. That would be counterproductive.

Of the many UM cases that were eventually solved, there have been a number of them in which it came to light that the person charged had been looked into as a possible suspect early on.

One example is the 1989 murder of Missouri bank president Dan Short. Shannon Agofsky and his brother Joe had both been suspected in the case even before the UM segment aired the spring of 1990.

Another example is the 1985 murder of Daniel Paquette. Eric Windhurst was questioned shortly after the homicide, but the cops didn't have any evidence against him at the time. In the years since the murder up until his arrest in December of 2005, Windhurst's involved in the murder became an "open secret."

So if Rhonda Hinson's murder is eventually solved and it comes to light that the person charged in the case had been suspected from the beginning, I wouldn't be surprised.

Wow. The preacher father being the trigger man is new and intriguing. Certainly plausible, too.

I don't know, though. I still feel like that shot was INCREDIBLY lucky... too lucky to have been intentional.

Wow. The preacher father being the trigger man is new and intriguing. Certainly plausible, too.

I don't know, though. I still feel like that shot was INCREDIBLY lucky... too lucky to have been intentional.

I agree that the shot was lucky, but I don't know that you an deduce intent from that. I think the clumsiness of the shot rules out a professional hit, but I also think that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the gun was fired by someone without a whole bunch of experience firing a weapon --- somone like a 19/20 year old ex boyfriend, for example.

The part of the case I find interesting is this: if we can take the eyewitness testimony as reported in the segment as reliable (and I never really take that as a given), a blue late-model Chevy was seen parked under the overpass from which Rhonda exited about half an hour before the shooting, with two white males in it. Then, the next witness saw a blue late-model Chevy speeding away from the crime scene with one white male in it, followed by a man standing at Rhonda's car with her body, followed finally by another black vehicle parked further up the road (this last part was only revealed under hypnosis, which makes its credibility quite suspect, IMHO).

I have my reservations about this sequence (as I always do with eye witness testimony, especially when some of it comes in an altered state), but, if we take it at face value, I think we get an interesting picture:

Two men have a plan to at least shoot at if not kill somebody who they expect will be exiting the interstate at that location (at the moment, I do not assume the intended target was even Rhonda, or, for that matter, anyone in particular --- could have been two kids deciding to shoot at cars getting off the interstate for the hell of it, which would explain a shot that, assuming the gunman was an experienced marksman, could not have been intentionally meant to kill anyone). For some reason, both people drive to the site, and one parks his car and leaves it further up the road away from the exit ramp for the interstate, and joins his companion in the blue car underneath the overpass. Presumably, one of the two men fires the rifle at Rhonda's car as it exits the interstate, and, after she swerves off the road, that person realizes he's likely injured her or perhaps killed her (which may or may not have been his intent). One of the two --- not necessarily the gunman --- then goes up the road to check to see what has happened to Rhonda, and in the mean time his companion flees the scene in the blue car. Finding Rhonda dead, the second man goes further up the road to his own car and leaves.

It's difficult to parse this, because it seems so rampantly illogical (and that in itself may be reason enough to discount some of the witness testimony here), but this scenaio, reconstructed from eyewitness testimony, leans heavily, at least to me, in the direction of either an ex-boyfriend of Rhonda's getting together with a buddy after a party or just a night of drinking together to go wait for her underneath the interstate, with a gun ready to shoot at her car and scare her, OR a random yet accidental killing, the result of a couple of drunk or high or just plain stupid kids thinking it would be funny to shoot at cars coming off the interstate, to test their marksmanship. In this case, the two don't quite realize that, for example, a bullet to the trunk could eventually pass through the cabin of the car and eventually kill someone. In either case, once the fatal shot is fired and the car has swerved off the road, one of the two, likely the gunman in my scenario (in the first cae, almost certainly the ex), rushes up to the car to see if she is alright, while the other bolts. When he sees she is dead, he leaves too, knowing his culpability in the matter.

One of these two similar scenarios is the only one that makes sense if there were indeed two people waiting in the blue car under the overpass, and that one had his own car at the scene, but parked further up the road. Even in my speculative scenario, the obvious question is, "Why would they bring two cars for this?" But, at least one could propose plausible if not entirely satisfactory reasons to explain this circumstance.

If, on the other hand, one of the two men came for the express purpose of killing Rhonda Hinson, why would he have a friend along? What purpose would that serve? And, if he did have a friend, again, why would they come in two cars? It only creates the circumstance that allowed for an almost disastrous eyewtiness sighting in which the person who was seen at Rhonda's car could have easily been identified. It also created the need for multiple getaways. Again, if someone knew he was going there to kill her or anyone, why would he make things so much harder than they needed to be?

Like I said, I'm not sure how much stock you can put in eyewitness testimony, either about whether there were one or two people in the blue car or whether there even was a black car further uo the road, but, assuming all details given were in fact correctly reported by the eyewitnesses, I think the most likely scenario is a shooting that was not intended to be fatal, but ultimately was.

This is my long way of saying I agree with LooksLikeChristinaRicci.

Well why the heck would someone be out after midnight firing a rifle? It doesnt make sense. I dont think even in the south it is common for people to run around after midnight with rifles. I think it was an intentional homicide or at least an intentional confrontation. I think Rhonda was confronted by someone and I think when she tried to get away the person that confronted her fired a shot and while it was a lucky shot he did hit and kill her. Maybe he only meant to scare her. I am sure he didnt think he would actually hit her. I dont think it was a professional hit but it is possible. As for the black car, if it was a pitch black night, no moon, if the car was parked further off the road it could certainly be possible the witness forgot about it or never saw it to begin with and didnt remember seeing it until under hypnosis.

Well why the heck would someone be out after midnight firing a rifle? It doesnt make sense. I dont think even in the south it is common for people to run around after midnight with rifles.

Common? No. Possible? As I'm sure people on this board with experience in the criminal justice system will tell you, people, especially young people, do stupendously stupid things all the time, often without what could even generously be called a logical reason.

That doesn't make it the most likely scenario, but I think it is still a possibility that fits the facts as described, and must therefore be considered.

I think it was an intentional homicide or at least an intentional confrontation. I think Rhonda was confronted by someone and I think when she tried to get away the person that confronted her fired a shot and while it was a lucky shot he did hit and kill her. Maybe he only meant to scare her.

I think, too, that there is a good chance that it was an intentional confrontation, as I descirbed in my original post. An ex boyfriend would have a good chance of knowing, for example, what route she would take to get home from various spots around the area, and so could have been lying in wait for her. It is essential to come up with a plausible explanation to this point if we assume that the people in the blue car were involved, because, if that is indeed the case, it seems likely, based on eyewitness accounts, that the people in the blue car were waiting for her at that location, rather than following her from the party or her friend's house.

It is also possible, as you are describing here, that the killer got her to pull over first, and spoke with her before she attempted to drive off, and shot only at that point. There were no witnesses to these events, so it is hard to really say. However, if that happened, and if there were two men in the blue car, as one witness claimed, and if the person or persons in that car were involved in her death, I think this scenario becomes much less likely. The reason I say this is because, to account for all the details known (and again, I am making two vital assumptions here: that all eyewitness testimony is accurate, and that both cars seen near the murder scene belonged to peopl who were intimately involved in the crime), we would have to envision the following scenario:

A person who wished to confront Rhonda Hinson (not just anyone, Rhonda Hinson), drove to the site where the interstate exit ramp was, followed by a friend in another car. This person also likely brought a gun, though it might have been brough by his friend. This person then parked his car several hundred yards beyond the exit ramp, walked back to where his friend was in the blue car, and waited in it with his friend. When they saw Rhonda Hinson in her car coming off the interstate, they drove up behind her and got her to pull over, which she was willing to do because she recongized one or both of them. The person who wanted to generate the confrontation spoke with her for a few moments, after which Hinson decided to leave. At this point, the person who forced the confrontation either raised the gun he had brought with him when he spoke with Rhonda and fired (as the UM segment showed), or went back to the blue car, retrieved the gun, and fired as she drove away.

There are a few reasons this seems unlikely to me. First, although it is possible that, in this scenario, the person firing the gun did not intend to kill her, but instead to scare her, this seems far less likely to me than in the scenario I posited. If they had just argued and she had just driven off, she was likely already scared, for one thing, and for another, we can safely assume the killer was now in an agitated state. If a weapon was at hand, and he chose to use it in that moment of passion, it would be harder to argue that he didn't use it with the intent to cause her bodily harm. Second, if we reason that this person came with the definite intention of shooting her if he didn't get whatever satisfaction he was looking for after flagging her down, why would he have involved another person (the second person in the blue car)? Moreover, if that person knew that his friend was bringing a gun and was looking for that kind of trouble, why would he agree to go? If the gun was not brought to the scene by the killer, but by his friend (say, for example, the gun just happened to be in the back seat of the blue car, which belonged, in my hypothetical scenario, to the friend), then it seems unlikely to me that the killer would have grabbed a gun that wasn't his before getting out of the car to confront Rhonda. If that assumption is right, then we have to imagine that after Rhonda drives off, and the killer, in the heat of passion, runs back to the blue car, grabs the gun from its location in that car, aims, and fires. While it is possible he could have done all of that before the car was out of firing range, it seems less likely. I have to admit that, on the other hand, this would explain the "clumsy" shot through the trunk --- she was too far away for anything much better, and the bullet would have entered her car more or less even with the tail lights, which would have been the only things making her car visible on a dark road at night anyway.

So, if someone went to that location that night with a friend for the express purpose of confronting Rhonda Hinson in some way, I think it is more likely that the person intended it to be from afar --- to shoot a bullet at her car to scare her, as I described in my original post. This is not to say that your idea is at all impossible. I just feel that, if there really were two people there that night, one has to explain the murder in such a way where one of the two (the person who did not pull the trigger) was more or less certain that no murder was going to take place. Why would the second person go if he were sure his friend intended to kill someone, and why would the killer invite another along, but drive his own car, creating an unnecessary complication in getting away and creating an unnecessary witness to the act? And yet, if the planned confrontation included the eventual killer going to Rhonda's door with a loaded rifle, how could the killer himself not have thought there was a real possibility he was going to kill Rhonda, and why wouldn't have his companion also thought so and for that reason refused to be involved?

I am sure he didnt think he would actually hit her. I dont think it was a professional hit but it is possible.

Well, you've changed your story, of course; at the beginning of this you said you thought "it was an intentional homicide," but now you think it was an accident, only now maybe it was a professional hit, which would make it intentional again...

As for the black car, if it was a pitch black night, no moon, if the car was parked further off the road it could certainly be possible the witness forgot about it or never saw it to begin with and didnt remember seeing it until under hypnosis.

You can't remember seeing something under hypnosis that you "never saw... to begin with"!

How do you know? Have you been under hypnosis? I certainly havent been. I mean you are right, maybe this witness for unknown reasons is lying. I dont know why he would do that, but it is possible. I mean the guy in the black car could have been an accomplice to the guy in the blue car, he could have been an innocent passerby that stopped. However why would he park h is car so far down the road if that was the case? I dont know.

Also I didnt "change my story." I was presenting different options, not changing my story. I do think whomever went out there intended to kill her, when I said that he didnt think he would actually hit her. I am sure he fired that shot thinking "I wont actually hit her" because her car was moving and he had to aim very quickly and was just shootign and he had no way of knowing it would kill her. I mean it was truly a lucky shot.

How do you know? Have you been under hypnosis? I certainly havent been.

Hypnosis can only jo gthe memory of things you have actually seen or done, not create the memory of things you never saw or never did. For example, I can't go under hypnosis and "remember" where Shakespeare left the manuscripts for all his plays. A silly example, but it illustrates the point: if the driver of the vehicle never saw the black car, hypnosis can't make him "remember" seeing it.

Of course, if what you meant was that, under the suggestion of hypnosis, a person might be liable to report seeing or hearing things that they actually did not (in other words, that hypnosis creates the possibility of wildly unreliable testimony), I could buy that --- in fact, I tend to agree that that is a strong possibility. So if that is what you meant, you're right.

I'm just saying that the theory of hypnosis, at any rate, is that it allows a person to recall things that happened in greater detail --- not recall things that never happened!

There is no way in my mind that this was a random attack. There is enough evidence, said to fill several file cabinets that suggest that this wasn't an accident or a random attack. As evidenced by so many theories brought forth in this thread and elsewhere there are so many things that could've happened to Rhonda. But all of these things seem to circle around her head so to speak and I have to believe that she was stalked and murdered by someone that night.

The information about two people being in the blue car is interesting although I feel some of you might be under the misconception that two people were inside the blue car when it was speeding away from the murder scene. While this is possible the witness when placed under hypnosis identified only a single man at the wheel speeding away from the murder scene. Another witness noticed two men in a similar vehicle some time before Rhonda's murder however nobody to my knowledge has ever implicated two men being in that vehicle as it sped away from the crime scene although we must question the possible fuzziness of the witness' memory as he needed it to be jogged via hypnosis in the first place (so maybe he only noticed one man at the wheel while the car was speeding away when in fact there were two)

If the witness is correct and he only saw one man speeding away from the scene it brings up a very plausible chain of events for what happened that night:

Rhonda Hinson goes to the Hickory Steel Company Christmas Party and either her nemesis (the individual who is giving her all this trauma and sleepless nights) is either at this party or is aware she is at this party. He decides either at the party or sometime during that evening that Rhonda Hinson has to be done away with for reasons known only to him.

He waits for her in the blue car along with an accomplice. We've discussed the possiblity of Rhonda's nemesis hiring a hitman to kill her - well this would fit in perfectly as far as the first sighting of two men in the car. Perhaps Rhonda's nemesis was paying off the hitman at that moment to do the deed or perhaps giving him final instructions on how he wanted it done.

Rhonda's nemesis then departs while the hitman continues to wait for Rhonda Hinson. When she passes him on the road, he somehow gets her to stop (perhaps in the method the psychic described) and murders her - he then speeds away from the crime scene and is spotted as the lone driver at the wheel of a similar car by witness #2.

If this scenerio is exactly what happened, one question remains: Who was the man seen at Rhonda's car after the blue car which was driven by the hitman was speeding away? Could've it have been Rhonda's nemesis (the man who ordered the hit in the first place) making sure the job was done and Rhonda was indeed dead or a passer by? Perhaps the Trans-Am parked on the side of the road belonged to this individual? Could've he have been waiting on the sidelines so to speak while Rhonda was being murdered and then after the murder was commited walk over to the crime scene himself and later flee from the crime scene in the Trans-Am?

I still go with my original Forcefield Analysis of a non-professional killer, getting off a lucky shot and then pulling off the side of the road to check if Hinson was indeed dead leaving physical evidence on the car. However the above scenerio is of course also possible and would fit more in line with the chain of events if you choose to believe that the blue car was instrumental in Rhonda's murder.

I agree that it doesn't appear to be a random attack. Given that Rhonda was acting pretty frightened in the weeks preceding it, I doubt it's a coincedence.

I'm not sure that Rhonda's nemesis was at the party, however. I doubt she could have partied with the uncomfortable feeling of having somebody she's afraid of in the same room.

^ Yeah I don't believe so either, but until we can exclude that possibility from the scenerio - we need to figure it in because it is possible that Rhonda out of earshot from others may have confronted her nemesis at this party and that may have precipatated her death. However I feel it was more likely that Rhonda's fate was sealed long before that party began...but someone had to be watching her closely on that evening to know where she was going and the route she took to return home from the Hickory Steel Company.

This was definitely one of the most planned attacks I think UM has ever broadcast. Which would make believe it was a contract hit. That doesn't necessarily mean that the person who hired the hitman wasn't present at the murder scene, could have been.

One of the few things that might make me believe it was a random attack was the proximity of Rhonda to her house at the time of the shooting. If it was planned, the person that pulled the trigger risked missing Rhonda, and Rhonda would have only been a mile or so to get to somewhere safer, and where she would have access to a phone.

However, they might not have had much choice. Rhonda had friends to drop off, so he/she/they might not have had a huge window of opportunity, either time-wise or distance-wise. The killer would almost certainly have had to known about the friends and where they were getting dropped off, which tells me how planned this was. If they had tried it with the friends in the car, it would have been difficult to knock off all three, that would leave at least one witness. Given how frightened Rhonda was at the time, I doubt she would pull over for a stranger at 1 a.m. in the morning.

There are two possibilities here if we buy into the hitman theory

1 - The first is pretty basic - Although the UM segment states "Rhonda would've never stopped for a stranger" that is a guess at best. If someone was standing in the middle of the road trying to flag her down she might have stopped. This is a young girl, who from what I can tell is not the most wordly person around - who knows whom she might have stopped for? - I acknowledge that given her state of mind she probably would've been less likely to pull over for a stranger but who knows for certain what she would've done?

2 - If we go with the theory of collusion between a hitman and a second party who would likely be the individual who ordered the hit it is possible that the individual who ordered the hit flagged Rhonda down and she stopped because she knew that individual. Then the hitman came out from wherever he was hiding and got off the shot that killed Rhonda.

I think the proximity of Rhonda to her house at the time of the shooting certainly pushes it towards more of a hit than a random attack. Whomever was stalking Rhonda that night had to know where she lived and what route she would take to get back to her house. He parked at a street he knew she would have to take to access her house and shot her as she passed him by.

I think the proximity of Rhonda to her house at the time of the shooting certainly pushes it towards more of a hit than a random attack. Whomever was stalking Rhonda that night had to know where she lived and what route she would take to get back to her house. He parked at a street he knew she would have to take to access her house and shot her as she passed him by.

This begs the question --- it assumes that it was a hit to prove it was a hit. If it was random, she wasn't being stalked, the location was. In which case, whoever came down that ramp next was going to be shot at. She came down the ramp next because that was the way to her house from wherever she was coming. Wrong place, wrong time.

I advanced the random scenario assuming that the intent was not to kill, but to shoot at cars --- perhaps tires, perhaps fenders --- for the heck of it. I proposed this possibility to account for a few things: it would help to explain why evidently two people were involved with something that would only require one person (if it was an intentional murder), and why someone appeared to be checking on her after she was shot (if the intent was to kill her, why check up on her at all after she was shot?).

However, as I think about it, I think that a very, very sloppy hit is a possibility, one that involved a woefully inexperienced hitman. I do think it's possible that the person who wanted her killed flagged her down, and the person who shot her was someone else, who evidently wasn't such a great shot (through the trunk? I would expect better from a pro). The gunman then fled, and, after a moment of checking to see the job was done, so did the person who hired the hit man --- going back to his own car, parked up the road.

This is a sloppy scenario, and assuming this is what happened the person behind it all should feel very grateful he hasn't been caught, but it does account for all the elements of the crime described by eyewitnesses: the blue car with two men in it, followed by that same car speeding away with just one man in it, and the sighting of another fellow with Rhonda in the last moments of her life (or immediately following her death). That's what I'm interested in here: versions of the story that fit what I am assuming are the facts.

Your version of the story fits perfectly with an overanxious person who ordered a hit and perhaps watched from the sidelines so to speak while the hit was being made. After Rhonda was shot, the person who ordered the hit went over to her car to make sure she was dead before fleeing the scene.

Also your question regarding "if the intent was to kill her, why check up on her at all after she was shot?" could also be answered if it was indeed the hitman or the individual who shot Rhonda seen at her car after the shots were fired. As I explained in my first post many pages back, the individual who shot at Rhonda had no idea whether he

A) spooked her
B) injured her
C) killed her

For some reason I believe this person (because his intent was to kill Rhonda Hinson) wanted to make sure that she was dead. While anything is possible, there is just too much stuff swirling around the head of Rhonda Hinson in the weeks and months before she was murdered for me to believe that her death was the case of her being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Interestingly if the the UM segment is accurate, a delivery van of some sort (or maybe a mobile home) pulls up as the witness is passing by Rhonda's car while the man was "checking on her" - I wonder if this other witness has ever been questioned.

In addition I'm positive that the person checking up on Rhonda has to be involved in the crime. There is very few reasons I can think of as to why this person has never come forward if he isn't involved in the crime because he might have some crucial information regarding her murder if he wasn't involved in the crime because he was the closest person at the scene apparently when it happened.

In addition I'm positive that the person checking up on Rhonda has to be involved in the crime. There is very few reasons I can think of as to why this person has never come forward if he isn't involved in the crime because he might have some crucial information regarding her murder if he wasn't involved in the crime because he was the closest person at the scene apparently when it happened.

Totally agree with you here. You raise a good point that it could be the hitman, and not the person who ordered the hit, who was seen checking her at the car. Indeed, this particular scenario is sounding more and more likely to me.

From watching this seggie again, is it possible that maybe Rhonda was pregnant by whoever she was having the affair with or was assaulted by? I keep getting the feeling each time I watch her episode that there's much more to the story than just Rhonda possibly just being involved with a married man? Even if she wasn't pregnant, there's more to this story. My other feeling would be if the man in question didn't have some sort of high profile within the community or in his field.

I watched the episode again recently and think the key is the 2 cars that were seen...If the cars were identified as a blue Chevelle and a black Trans Am, hopefully DMV records were pulled and cars matching the description in that county AND nearby counties were checked. Possibly one of the guys owned both cars. It certainly doesn't sound like a professional was involved. I think they (the 2 guys seen) went a step further than planned ( they were probably trying to "scare" her) and panicked.

I think the scenario of someone Rhonda knew flagged her down while a hitman waited in the shadows makes the most sense to me. Given her odd behavior about not wanting to drive alone, I doubt she would stop for a total stranger. And I think the person who went to the car to check on her (seen by the passing motorist) was the hit man making sure he actually killed her. That would make sense as to why the motorist saw a vehicle speeding away as he approached her car who could have been the person who ordered the hit. As to why someone would want her dead is beyond me, but based off of the segment it seems pretty cut and dry that she was involved in some relationship that was not kosher, whether it be having an affair with a married man, getting harassed at work, or even getting raped...I think all are strong possibilities. I think the motive that makes the most sense would be that Rhonda was going to blow a whistle on someone or something that that particular person/people wanted to keep quiet. It's kind of a drag that they still haven't solved this crime. Makes you wonder if a cover up really is going on.

I think the scenario of someone Rhonda knew flagged her down while a hitman waited in the shadows makes the most sense to me. Given her odd behavior about not wanting to drive alone, I doubt she would stop for a total stranger. And I think the person who went to the car to check on her (seen by the passing motorist) was the hit man making sure he actually killed her. That would make sense as to why the motorist saw a vehicle speeding away as he approached her car who could have been the person who ordered the hit. As to why someone would want her dead is beyond me, but based off of the segment it seems pretty cut and dry that she was involved in some relationship that was not kosher, whether it be having an affair with a married man, getting harassed at work, or even getting raped...I think all are strong possibilities. I think the motive that makes the most sense would be that Rhonda was going to blow a whistle on someone or something that that particular person/people wanted to keep quiet. It's kind of a drag that they still haven't solved this crime. Makes you wonder if a cover up really is going on.

If the hit is as you described, it would be one heck of a professional job.

These type of guys don;t come cheap.

Who would go through that much trouble to off her? For an affair?

1. Police chief?
2. Someone in a high level corporate position? Rhonda's superior's, maybe?
3. Politician?


I tend to find that someone who goes through the process of murdering a mistress, usually has
1. multiple young children he can;t stand to lose in a divorce proceeding.
2. Can't afford the divorce
3. can't afford the damage of an affair coming public.

This case has always gotten to me and I really feel for the parents and for Rhonda in this case. She was just so young and getting started with her life. I know there is a solution to this case and I know it is someone local. It is obviously someone that she knew...whether it is the boyfriend or not. I totally agree with the fact that they "agreed" to meet there (the two white males), which is why the other car was parked on the side of the road.

I think whomever did this did not intend to killer her though. I feel that they did it to scare her. I feel that if they wanted to kill her, there would have been many different, easier ways to do this, as opposed to waiting a half mile from her home. I wonder if the person, standing in the road, had stopped her and told her not to come forward w/ her information, and used the gun to scare her. Maybe she didn't comply and when she drove off in a panic he fired in anger. I think it is pure coincidence that the shot hit where it did. I think if it were a "hitman," he would not have tried to fire through the trunk and through the seat, that would just be almost impossible to plan that out (I would at least think he would fire through the rear window.)

I think we almost know for a fact it is someone from the community (or area of the steel mill) and that the parents probably know them/him, which is the really sad part. The family has probably even seen the killer or the killer has probably even offered his condolences to the family. I really feel that with the fingerprints the police have, this case should be solved.

I really feel for the parents in this case because their daughter was taken. It is not fair, especially that all this time has passed. i cannot imagine how tough that Christmas, three days later, would have been. My heart really goes out to them.

Also, something very nice to see, I don't know if anyone else has done this. I went to google maps and typed in mineral springs mountain road valdese, nc. Anyways, I went to streetview and went up the road. There is actually a small cross with a wreath that you can see on the side of the road right where Rhonda's car was found. It is nice to see that there is still one there after all of these years:)

I think it is pure coincidence that the shot hit where it did. I think if it were a "hitman," he would not have tried to fire through the trunk and through the seat, that would just be almost impossible to plan that out

What type of calibre and gun was used?

What type of calibre and gun was used?

I thought they said it was a high powered rifle. I'd have to watch the segment again.

Was just thinking after reading through a few threads on this case, if there were 2 cars , one parked further up the road. MAYBE the person she was having a affair with got a friend to come with him, and park near the bridge to see when she was coming. he parks further up the road and maybe gets out the car ready to flag her down and get her to stop. while the friend in the blue car comes up behind her?
either just follows her there or calls his friend to say shes coming. who knows.

where is the cross on the road, i had a quick look but couldnt see anything

where is the cross on the road, i had a quick look but couldnt see anything

That post was over a year old. The cross may not be there anymore.

oh

Yikes! Thought the persons comment had pasted and it didn't! What it basically said was that she felt someone out hunting (poaching) had fired a shot and it had accidently hit Rhonda's car.

This exactly what I think happened...although wasn't it 1am or so in the morning? Of course if your poaching though, best to do it when no one's around

FYI...it is still there, just found it!

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q142/stupidbicyclist/hinsoncross.jpg

wow thanks for posting piccy! Gives a really good idea just what sort of place she was killed in...I pictured it much more wooded for some reason.

I have two theories of what may have happened to Rhonda.

1. This very well could have been a prank gone horribly wrong. The two young men seen in the car underneath the overpass could have been two adolescents (possibly under the influence), who just so happened to "target" the first car that took the ramp they were parked by which just so happened to be Rhonda. The biggest piece of evidence supporting an accidental shooting is the fact that she was killed by a bullet that entered her trunk, which then passed through the car and hit her heart. If someone honestly wanted her dead, why were there no more bullet wounds in Rhonda, and why was her body out of the car? We have the 2nd eyewitness who says he saw a blue car speeding out of the area (with one male driving) and a few yards up the road he ran into Rhonda's car and actually saw Rhonda slumped over the steering wheel with another man leaning up against her open car door. This man seen by her car almost certainlty was not a passerby or a good samaritan simply because he would have attempted to flag the motorist down, went to call for help, or stayed until the authorities showed up. This also is a strong indicator that this may have been an accident. It's quite possible that these two young men were out to scare Rhonda (God only knows why) by shooting at her car, or in the air, but the triggerman accidentally hit her. Then when her car careened off of the road they realized something was horribly wrong. One felt bad enough to go over to Rhonda to check on her, while the other, in a panic, decided to flee. The other man could have removed Rhonda from her car in an attempt to resuscitate her, and when he realized there was no hope he also began to panic and fled.

2. The other possible scenario is that she was being hit on by a married man at the company she worked at, and actually entertained the idea of having an affair with him. Only after her mother scorned her for even thinking of such a thing did she realize what a mistake it was, and probably backed off. After she shot down his advances, this probably would have angered the married man, which could have ultimately led to a sexual assault or rape. He probably threatened to kill her if she told anyone what happened, and this would account for her strange behavior (telling her father she had something to tell him but was afraid to, her taking showers in the middle of the night, her insomnia, etc.). Perhaps she ran into this man at the Christmas party and finally got enough courage to tell him she was going to expose what had happened between them and he followed her home and killed her. The bullet through the trunk really wouldn't make any sense here, because if Rhonda was killed by this married man, he almost certainly would have wanted to make sure she was dead. There were no other wounds found on Rhonda, and that's almost impossible in a crime of passion type killing. However, her odd behavior (and the fact that she was afraid to drive around without her father) seem to indicate that something frightened Rhonda.

I honestly think the prank scenario holds more water because the motorist saw a man standing beside Rhonda's car almost like he was propping her up. A professional hitman (or someone with the intention to kill Rhonda) simply would have walked up and shot her again and again to make sure she was dead. You do not try to kill someone by shooting at their trunk. Period.

I honestly think the prank scenario holds more water because the motorist saw a man standing beside Rhonda's car almost like he was propping her up. A professional hitman (or someone with the intention to kill Rhonda) simply would have walked up and shot her again and again to make sure she was dead. You do not try to kill someone by shooting at their trunk. Period.

I disagree.

One may be hired as a "hitman", but it does not necessarily follow that one is a professional. Think Elmo Florence, TK Hardy's killer. Unless one has unusually extensive economic and social connections, they're A) not going to know even whom to ASK about where to procure the services of a "professional" hitman, and/or B) not going to be able to afford the cost. So they resort to what lots of "regular folk" do on a daily basis when they need their car engine worked on or their landscaping polished without having to shell out for a trained individual: they ask their equally-as-average buddy or acquaintance to do it for a modest price. A small-timer hiring another small-timer.

I once saw an FBI files where a woman was driving along. She had her back window (I think on the passenger's side) rolled down a bit. A bullet from a nearby firing range entered through the open window hit the woman and killed her. The investigators said if the window would have been rolled up the bullet wouldn't have had enough energy to have killed her. (wouldn't have broken the glass maybe...or maybe wouldn't have gotten all the way to her)

Now that is one hell of an unfortunate fluke and I think something similar happened in this case.

I disagree.

One may be hired as a "hitman", but it does not necessarily follow that one is a professional. Think Elmo Florence, TK Hardy's killer. Unless one has unusually extensive economic and social connections, they're A) not going to know even whom to ASK about where to procure the services of a "professional" hitman, and/or B) not going to be able to afford the cost. So they resort to what lots of "regular folk" do on a daily basis when they need their car engine worked on or their landscaping polished without having to shell out for a trained individual: they ask their equally-as-average buddy or acquaintance to do it for a modest price. A small-timer hiring another small-timer.

My choice of words was wrong. I honestly didn't think that if Rhonda's killer was a hired hitman, he was professional at all. My whole point was that if Rhonda was targeted for a hit, the hitman would definitely make sure she was dead. If this were the work of a local "good ole boy" who was hired for a meager sum, despite how sloppy he was in doing the deed, he still would have wanted to make sure she was dead. Shooting at a moving target with a rifle is definitely NOT the best way to carry out a hit. I'm sure if someone was paying money to have Rhonda killed, they certainly would have planned every detail out thoroughly. In TK Hardy's case, he was killed at his home. Also in TK Hardy's case, his killer began to run his mouth. And if Rhonda truely were the target of the hit, I'm sure someone would have blabbed about it by now.

Got it on the clarification of terms. I'm tracking now.

If this were the work of a local "good ole boy" who was hired for a meager sum, despite how sloppy he was in doing the deed, he still would have wanted to make sure she was dead.

I was under the impression that the aim of yanking her out of the car was to do just this, to make sure she was dead--although not quite in the sense you're intending to express.

Shooting at a moving target with a rifle is definitely NOT the best way to carry out a hit.

I agree, if you're a terrible shot--or aren't confident about where your rounds will land. The individual didn't have to be a great marksman or a trajectory genius, he simply had to be assured that he could make the shot and that it was the most effective way of carrying out the task--ludicrous as that may seem to you or me.

I've been to the scene. I've always felt whomever fired the shot through Rhonda's trunk did it from the bottom of the incline underneath the I-40 bridge, as the round traveled upwards and managed to pierce her heart. There isn't much distance at all between that point and where Rhonda's car was found. It's no more than 150 meters at most, and it was fired from a high-powered rifle. Rhonda's car did not have automatic transmission, so she would have been moving quite slowly up the hill after executing her right turn. It wouldn't have been difficult. A lot of unnecessary work, but not particularly difficult.

Additionally, firing from a distant point is a pretty good way not to be seen.

I'm sure if someone was paying money to have Rhonda killed, they certainly would have planned every detail out thoroughly.

I'm not. I truly enjoy and appreciate human beings, but I never doubt their capacity for self-assuredness without skill.

Also in TK Hardy's case, his killer began to run his mouth. And if Rhonda truely were the target of the hit, I'm sure someone would have blabbed about it by now.

From what I understand, there is an entire filing cabinet sitting in the Burke County, NC Sheriff's office right now literally full of information from Rhonda's investigation. Perhaps some individuals have in fact over the years claimed to be Rhonda's killer, but there simply isn't enough evidence to move forward on any of them. None of us are privy to it at present, so I suppose we'll never know.

I never thought about the guy sitting idle when he fired at Rhonda's car. That actually makes more sense to me. The way UM portrayed it, it seemed like whoever fired at Rhonda was in a car trailing her.

I've been to the scene. I've always felt whomever fired the shot through Rhonda's trunk did it from the bottom of the incline underneath the I-40 bridge, as the round traveled upwards and managed to pierce her heart. There isn't much distance at all between that point and where Rhonda's car was found. It's no more than 150 meters at most, and it was fired from a high-powered rifle. Rhonda's car did not have automatic transmission, so she would have been moving quite slowly up the hill after executing her right turn. It wouldn't have been difficult. A lot of unnecessary work, but not particularly difficult.

Additionally, firing from a distant point is a pretty good way not to be seen.


Interesting. But if the goal was not to be seen, why did either the killer or possibly his friend then go, once Rhonda had been shot, and kneel down next to her and check on her? Seems to defeat the purpose.

Interesting. But if the goal was not to be seen, why did either the killer or possibly his friend then go, once Rhonda had been shot, and kneel down next to her and check on her? Seems to defeat the purpose.

He didn't just kneel down and check on her, he physically pulled her from the car and laid her on the ground next to the car, placing her arms by her side. When the witness who was later put under hypnosis drove by, the man seen at Rhonda's car never bothered to hide or make a run for it. He kept shaking her while she was slumped over the steering wheel even though he knew he could be seen. That always confused me.

Here's a pic of the cross and wreath where Rhonda's car and body were found (to the right) and it's distance from the Interstate 40 bridge.

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Rhonda.jpg

I never thought about the guy sitting idle when he fired at Rhonda's car. That actually makes more sense to me. The way UM portrayed it, it seemed like whoever fired at Rhonda was in a car trailing her.

I don't take psychic's words for much but it should be stated that Rhonda's family did go and see this woman and she claimed that whomever killed Rhonda had forced her to come to a complete stop and approached her before firing the fatal shot standing in the road as Rhonda tried to pull away. If true, this could explain how the killer was able to get off such a clean shot as he did.

The psychic claimed the killer forced Rhonda to pull over and approached her car. The killer concealed his weapon underneath I believe a blanket or something of that nature but at some point Rhonda realized her life was in danger and tried to pull away which is when the killer took the gun out from underneath whatever he was using to conceal it in the first place and fired the fatal shot into the trunk of Rhonda's car as she was pulling away.

The high acceleration of Rhonda's vehicle combined with of course the fatal shot is what caused the car to careen off the road into the embankment.

The sequence of events was more or less detailed in the UM segment although never elaborated on by RS.

The only way she could have been pulled over in an area like that (countryside with no streetlights or sidewalk) would be if the killer literally stood in the middle of the road and she stopped to avoid hitting him. Still, that seems like such a risk and couldn't she have swerved into the next lane to drive around him? Stopping for what she thought might be a stranger at 1:00 in the morning seems out of the question.

I've never driven a stick shift vehicle before. If you're driving up an incline like that, is your speed really limited if you're trying to drive fast right away?

The only way she could have been pulled over in an area like that (countryside with no streetlights or sidewalk) would be if the killer literally stood in the middle of the road and she stopped to avoid hitting him. Still, that seems like such a risk and couldn't she have swerved into the next lane to drive around him? Stopping for what she thought might be a stranger at 1:00 in the morning seems out of the question.

I've never driven a stick shift vehicle before. If you're driving up an incline like that, is your speed really limited if you're trying to drive fast right away?

The whole thing is so maddening isn't it? When I started this thread six years ago I had all these theories as what could have happened and now six years later I'm still unable to rule out all different types of possibilities.

You would think that if there was a confrontation between Hinson and her killer at the side of the road that the propensity for further witnesses would have increased but yet nobody has ever come forward to substantiate the psychic's claim that Hinson and her attacker had a confrontation moments before her death.

As far as the psychic's claims I believe originally part of her scenario was the killer indeed was in the middle of the road and flagged Rhonda down possibly feigning that he was having car trouble. Now would've someone in Rhonda's paranoid state of mind have pulled over for a total stranger? It would seem highly unlikely especially at that time of evening but you can't exactly rule it out either.

If you do buy into the theory that there was a confrontation between Rhonda and her killer prior to her murder, it begs the question did Rhonda know the individual who fired the fatal shot? During the scene portrayed in the segment (which again was apparently based on this psychic's take on the events of that evening) it appears that Rhonda and this individual were involved in some type of argument prior to Hinson pulling away. Were they arguing over some issue known only to the two of them? (perhaps the motive for the murder itself?)

These are the questions that are so maddening when it comes to this case. There is obviously someone out there who wanted Rhonda Hinson dead for a very specific reason. Whatever that reason might be there has to be significant missing pieces to tie that motive (which I personally believe the police have been keeping under wraps for thirty years now) to a suspect.

A few links to articles about her case I'm not sure if anyone has posted before. They have a picture of her car when she was found which is pretty interesting:

http://www.burkesheriff.org/hinson.htm

http://www2.morganton.com/news/2011/dec/22/rhonda-hinsons-killing-turns-30-ar-1743467/

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on here or if UM mentioned it but a true crime blog I read stated that Rhonda was found dead in a ditch (not in her car) and police think she wouldn't have been able to get out of her car on her own after the injuries she sustained.

bump for Rhonda...

In that first link you posted it said that Rhonda went to go pick up her car and call her boyfriend...? Howcome the boyfriend was never mentioned in the UM segment? I personally think it was a hit, if she had been sleeping around and gotten involved with a married man. Maybe the married man had some sort of "status" in town? Is it possible that she could have been pregnant at that time?

bump for Rhonda...

In that first link you posted it said that Rhonda went to go pick up her car and call her boyfriend...? Howcome the boyfriend was never mentioned in the UM segment? I personally think it was a hit, if she had been sleeping around and gotten involved with a married man. Maybe the married man had some sort of "status" in town? Is it possible that she could have been pregnant at that time?


Yeah, it's interesting that a boyfriend was not mentioned in the segment. I think that leads credence to the idea mentioned earlier that there could have been something up between her and a boyfriend's father, a local minister.

I agree with others that there was definitely something going on with a married man whether it was consensual, reluctant on her part, or forced. The showering and feeling dirty could mean anything from rape to just feeling guilty and 'dirty' about consensual sex with a married man.

I think it would have been mentioned if she was pregnant. However, they overlooked that little detail in on UM in Angela Hammond's case. But I think it would be mentioned in the theories and articles on the case. Unless it's been intentionally held back by police.

I agree with others that there was definitely something going on with a married man whether it was consensual, reluctant on her part, or forced. The showering and feeling dirty could mean anything from rape to just feeling guilty and 'dirty' about consensual sex with a married man.


I think it's possible that the married man showed his intentions and Rhonda battled with whether or not it was ok, including asking her mother. Then she possibly went ahead with it or refused and he attacked her, explaining the late night showers, insomnia, and not wanting to drive around alone. If she went ahead with the affair but then backed out from guilt, this would also explain why she was being stalked. I think the man was lying in wait for her and fired to get her to pull over, striking her in error; he then frantically ran over to see if he could revive her or if she was alright.

I think the man was lying in wait for her and fired to get her to pull over, striking her in error; he then frantically ran over to see if he could revive her or if she was alright.

This is a good enough theory for me. It seems like either the guy was a horrible shot, or was trying to scare Rhonda into stopping but hit her accidentally. But what about the other car seen flying away from the scene? Didn't another witness report seeing two men sitting in the car under the over pass? If that's true, one of them fled the scene and left the other behind.

This is a good enough theory for me. It seems like either the guy was a horrible shot, or was trying to scare Rhonda into stopping but hit her accidentally. But what about the other car seen flying away from the scene? Didn't another witness report seeing two men sitting in the car under the over pass? If that's true, one of them fled the scene and left the other behind.
If the killer was trying to get Rhonda to pull over, his intention may have been to abduct her. The accomplice could have been brought in to outnumber/overpower her; this accomplice also could have been the actual shooter, for all we know. Perhaps they stood under the bridge and fired when they saw Rhonda's car in order to get her to stop. While the mystery man was checking on Rhonda, it could be that the accomplice decided to flee and the other man had to go running off away from the scene before LE arrived. I would have to watch the segment again to recall where the vehicles were and which direction the suspicious car fled in.

I have a lot of questions about the case that I would love to have answered, but it's doubtful they will be. Here are my big two:
1) Who is the mystery man behind Rhonda's insomnia, late night showers, and married man question? No doubt the big question, but I have a hard time believing Rhonda didn't tell at least one friend his name or about the situation. If she really didn't, she must have been under a great load of pressure.
2) Why are the police so sure that Rhonda was being stalked? What evidence do they have? I really want to know!


I think that the stalking and waiting theory is a likely possibility. If he was stalking her, he would have known about the party and the route she used to get home.

The only problem I have with the married man stalking her theory is several witnesses place two men at the scene. How could this married man get another guy to go along with him while he stalked (and shot at) Rhonda? And why wouldn't the other guy come forward by now?

The only problem I have with the married man stalking her theory is several witnesses place two men at the scene. How could this married man get another guy to go along with him while he stalked (and shot at) Rhonda? And why wouldn't the other guy come forward by now?

Maybe this was an Elmo Florence-type character being compensated for his "service". On the other hand, Florence began talking about his crimes almost immediately, which is pretty much the sole reason he was caught.

I've always felt whomever fired the shot through Rhonda's trunk did it from the bottom of the incline underneath the I-40 bridge, as the round traveled upwards and managed to pierce her heart. There isn't much distance at all between that point and where Rhonda's car was found. It's no more than 150 meters at most, and it was fired from a high-powered rifle. Rhonda's car did not have automatic transmission, so she would have been moving quite slowly up the hill after executing her right turn. It wouldn't have been difficult. A lot of unnecessary work, but not particularly difficult.



It may not be that difficult to hit a slow-moving car, but to shoot through the trunk and have the bullet go all the way through the seats and pierce the victim's lung and heart? That is either an INCREDIBLY skilled marksman or an INCREDIBLY lucky amateur.

I wonder if maybe whoever shot didn't mean to kill her? Maybe they were just trying to scare her (shoot out her tire, or shoot at the car's trunk) and the bullet went too far and actually hit and killed Rhonda. Or maybe it was some hunters or poachers who were too close to the road and accidentally shot a car. They go to check on her and see that she is dead or close to death when they pull her from the car. So they panic and bail. That would explain why they didn't come forward.

I never quite got the gist of FORCEFIELD ANALYSIS, or what it's supposed to mean. My take on it is that it's supposed to suggest that most mysteries on UM are easily solvable if you pay close enough attention, but I don't think that's the case. I think they're called mysteries for a reason, and many of the cases are quite difficult to solve.

In any event, I definitely feel Rhonda was targeted. There was an eyewitness account of a car idling with its lights off, which started following Rhonda immediately after she drove by it. Given that, and all of the things that were going on in her life at the time, I definitely think she was targeted by someone.

Very fascinating, confusing, and heartbreaking case. Makes you wonder how Rhonda's life could've turned out and what she might like in her early 50s today in 2014.

Just read all six pages, and it's interesting that UM left out the (very relevant and important) information about not only Rhonda having a boyfriend, but that she left the Christmas party with some other friends and went to pick her car UP as well as call her bf. That tells me even more, that whoever killed her did so intentionally. Was her bf himself ever investigated? I'm not sure what involvement his preacher dad may have perhaps had in her murder, but we can't rule anything out.

Also, I think we always have to take what "eyewitnesses" say with a grain of salt, especially the psychic visions. I'm open-minded and I don't disbelieve either of those in general, but it's far from concrete proof. We don't know for sure if there were 2 cars at the scene with 2 guys (the gunman and his accomplice...likely someone Rhonda knew), but I absolutely believe the guy who pulled her out of the car sure wasn't a random passerby. I Google Earthed that very spot, and even now it's a pretty rural small town, the pictures only go back to 1993 and you have to figure there was even less stuff there in 1981! ;)

This is a shot in the dark, but I get the impression that Rhonda's parents, while very loving and supportive, may have been a bit conservative and old fashioned (ala Cindy James' parents). I'm not sure if that factored into her reluctance to tell them everything about her life or exactly what happened (maybe fearing they'd judge her), but it's possible that scared her even more in her final weeks.

Do we know if her parents are still alive? Rhonda was born in 1962, so they must be born in like 1935, making them probably 80 or so now. I hope they can find resolution to their daughter's case before they pass away.

I live very close to this area. I'm not sure if her parents are still living. This case as always stayed with me since I first saw it on UM.

I live very close to this area. I'm not sure if her parents are still living. This case as always stayed with me since I first saw it on UM.

Do the people living in the area still talk about this case or is it pretty much forgotten about?

I've not heard anyone speak of it in years except for me. Of course I'm a huge crime buff fan. I've watched mysteries since I was a little girl which probably started with UM. There was a news clip once where a man died and I rumor of him making a deathbed confession of being involved in Rhonda's murder. But nothing came of it. This was years ago probably back in the 90's (can't remember the actual date). I've always believed that Rhonda was seeing a man in position of power. If she was seeing someone at work that she was threatened by I doubt she would have went to the party but that is just IMO.

I've never commented on this story but I have a few thoughts.

Having read this thread, the theory that makes the most sense to me is the boyfriend and his father one. In this theory, a poster stated that Rhonda was dating a pastors son and she had first hand knowledge of him having sexual encounters with other people. Maybe she was going to expose it and when she and her boyfriend broke up, the pastor and his son killed her. This would also backup the "more than one person involved" story.

The one about her work makes a ton of sense as well, but if she was that afraid of someone she worked with, then why did she go to a company party, where I would assume this person was, and party until 1am?

The parents are still alive as is the younger brother per the internet. The father was born in 1939. His mother died several years ago in her 90s.

given the circumstances of the crime it seems if Rhonda was intentionally shot at the intent was not to kill her but to scare her (like by shooting out her taillight) but the round proved to be to powerful at the given range. if murder was the intent, the killer would have found a way better than depending on a difficult shot through a car body and if the shot had been fired from near the I-40 overpass the shooter would have let her drive by when he could have had an easy kill shot.

Despite the claims in this thread, no marksman, no matter how skilled, would deliberately attempt to kill someone by shooting through the trunk. Such a person would simply wait for another opportunity. In addition the victim would have had to have passed closer to the shooter and at a front or side angle when a kill shot would have been very easy. Therefore I think the shot was either a prank or meant as a warning with the shooter probably aiming for the left side tail light. Also if it were intentional, there was a mole at the party who told the shooter that she was on her way. The shooter himself could not have been at the party and followed her because he was supposedly already set up a half hour earlier, probably the time difference caused by Rhonda's stop en route. Further possible evidence of a warning not a murder is the man who came up to the car and pulled her out to see if she was alive. He probably couldn't believe his taillight shot had actually hit her, let alone killed her.
While her route home could be very predictable (her home was off a side street to the west just a short distance from the crime scene), the time of her arrival would have been variable based on when she left the party. The shooter would not want to be hanging around for hours suspiciously. So someone at the party probably had some involvement with the warning shot. I suspect the cops have all this but just cannot prove it but have probably honed in on someone from the party.

I agree that the shot was lucky, but I don't know that you can deduce intent from that.

Of course you can. If someone wants to kill somebody, they set themselves up to do so. They don't depend on a lucky 100-1 shot through the back of a car, particularly after the car just passed by the probable location of the shooter where a much better shot could have been taken.

It seems the intent was to scare, not to kill Rhonda. They just underestimated the high velocity of the round at the given range. If they had hit the tail light, as they probably intended, the round would have probably stopped there as it struck the light fixture.

Since it was probably a group effort as someone had to tip the shooter off as to Rhonda's movements, which implies someone she worked with who was at the party, the cops probably have a pretty good idea of who it was but just don't have enough evidence to prove it.

That post was over a year old. The cross may not be there anymore.
It's still there about 50 yards north of the entrance to a curvy driveway on the other side of the street.

I once saw an FBI files where a woman was driving along. She had her back window (I think on the passenger's side) rolled down a bit. A bullet from a nearby firing range entered through the open window hit the woman and killed her. The investigators said if the window would have been rolled up the bullet wouldn't have had enough energy to have killed her. (wouldn't have broken the glass maybe...or maybe wouldn't have gotten all the way to her)

Now that is one hell of an unfortunate fluke and I think something similar happened in this case.

The only problem with such a scenario is that the random shot would have been traveling straight down a road and not hitting at an angle like someone was shooting randomly from a field somewhere. A round going along a road seems a lot less random to me.

BTW some guy shot a gun in the air in Ohio a year or so ago and such rounds eventually come back down and this one hit and killed an Amish girl driving a buggy a mile away.

I never thought about the guy sitting idle when he fired at Rhonda's car. That actually makes more sense to me. The way UM portrayed it, it seemed like whoever fired at Rhonda was in a car trailing her.

The shooter was probably standing in the road and using her taillight as an aiming point. The line of sight distance even at its greatest was not that far (surely less than the 250 yards claimed), which is why the bullet had such penetrating effect. But if the aim was to kill, the shooter could not depend on that. What if she had something in the back seat like a box or purse or something that would prematurely stop or deflect the bullet?

I don't take psychic's words for much but it should be stated that Rhonda's family did go and see this woman and she claimed that whomever killed Rhonda had forced her to come to a complete stop and approached her before firing the fatal shot standing in the road as Rhonda tried to pull away. If true, this could explain how the killer was able to get off such a clean shot as he did.

This claim does not match the facts of the case as we know them. If she started to drive away, why didn't the killer aim for her instead of the trunk? Didn't he have the rifle with him? And if he wasn't shooting to kill, why shoot at all? BTW that does not sound like a clean shot to me. Through the trunk, back seat and front seat to kill someone. Sounds like a lucky not clean shot.
Also if he forced her to a complete stop why did the shot go into the back of the car since we can presume you stop someone from the front. She did not change direction so he must have been behind her all along (in other words she did not stop) Also if he were going to force her to a complete stop, why did he not do it at the exit ramp where she had to come to a complete stop anyway rather than up the hill a ways?

This psychic guessed poorly.

The shooter was probably standing in the road and using her taillight as an aiming point. The line of sight distance even at its greatest was not that far (surely less than the 250 yards claimed), which is why the bullet had such penetrating effect. But if the aim was to kill, the shooter could not depend on that. What if she had something in the back seat like a box or purse or something that would prematurely stop or deflect the bullet?

I agree.

I've always leaned more towards teenagers (or someone else) trying to scare Rhonda, and accidentally killing her. It would account for the witness who saw someone seeming to attempt to tend to her in the car after the shot was fired, and the odd trajectory.