This has probably already been discussed on here but today I was reading something I had never noticed before. On the Burke County website it says:

On the evening of Tuesday, December 22, 1981, Rhonda 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.

Do you think her and her boyfriend had an argument on the phone that night??? Remember there were no cell phones back then. Who would have known what time Rhonda would be going home from the party???

In my opinion, Rhonda's killer was someone associated with the party or someone who knew what time she would be leaving the party and going home. In a recent local article (I live about an hour from Burke County), Her mother says she never went out at night. She was scared.

So I feel like whoever killed her felt like this may be their only chance since she never went out at night. Has the boyfriend ever been looked into??? I would love to know your thoughts.

This has probably already been discussed on here but today I was reading something I had never noticed before. On the Burke County website it says:

On the evening of Tuesday, December 22, 1981, Rhonda 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.

Do you think her and her boyfriend had an argument on the phone that night??? Remember there were no cell phones back then. Who would have known what time Rhonda would be going home from the party???

In my opinion, Rhonda's killer was someone associated with the party or someone who knew what time she would be leaving the party and going home. In a recent local article (I live about an hour from Burke County), Her mother says she never went out at night. She was scared.

So I feel like whoever killed her felt like this may be their only chance since she never went out at night. Has the boyfriend ever been looked into??? I would love to know your thoughts.
I want to know if this boyfriend is the married man in question, but I seriously doubt it as no one seemed to know who the married man was that she was referring to. Her frequent showers and such led people to believe that she was being sexually abused- perhaps by the married man? Maybe he had pursued her and attacked her? The person who shot her, in my opinion, did not mean to kill her, which is why they grabbed her out of the car and were holding her as the witness said. I think it's possible that the married man pursued/ was aggressive with Rhonda when she didn't pursue a relationship with him or he was jealous about this boyfriend she had. I think if the car and witness description had matched the boyfriend in any way, LE would have already made note of it. I would love to get more info on this case. I think in the next couple of days it will be 31 years since the murder and her family deserves to know the truth just as much as Rhonda deserves justice.

I want to know if this boyfriend is the married man in question, but I seriously doubt it as no one seemed to know who the married man was that she was referring to. Her frequent showers and such led people to believe that she was being sexually abused- perhaps by the married man? Maybe he had pursued her and attacked her? The person who shot her, in my opinion, did not mean to kill her, which is why they grabbed her out of the car and were holding her as the witness said. I think it's possible that the married man pursued/ was aggressive with Rhonda when she didn't pursue a relationship with him or he was jealous about this boyfriend she had. I think if the car and witness description had matched the boyfriend in any way, LE would have already made note of it. I would love to get more info on this case. I think in the next couple of days it will be 31 years since the murder and her family deserves to know the truth just as much as Rhonda deserves justice.

I agree 100%. I also think it's likely that Rhonda's killer/s were unknown to her, and were just some dumb teenagers trying to pull a stupid prank that got deadly.

If her boyfriend was a married man, I think that information would have been released ages ago.

Stupid teenagers out having fun shooting, with this turning into a terrible accident sounds plausible. But this took place out in the country with no street lights. The only light you were going to get was from the occasional passing car, and this was late at night so your weren't going to see many of those. What kind of pranks can you pull with it being pitch dark? I guess it's possible the two males in the chevrolet could have been teens who simply got out of the car and pulled a rifle out as Rhonda drove off, not thinking they would hit anything. Police believe the shots came from there, right under the bridge.

This shot shows the distance from the bridge to where Rhonda ended up...

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

Whoever shot her, I'm surprised they would let themself be seen at her car when the witness later drove by.

The phone call to the boyfriend is pretty interesting, given the timing. Why not call him from her own home, to let him know that she arrived home safely?

A really good thread on this case: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=166193&page=2&highlight=rhon From post #26, it was being claimed during the filming of the segment that Rhonda had broken up with a boyfriend prior to her murder. That man's father supposedly was a minister and a hunter.

Nor do I think the perpetrator had to be someone with any greater proficiency than your average clay target shooter. While it could have been a prank or illegal hunting gone wrong, I'd have expected that sort of idiot to run off immediately, or to quickly look through the window or open the door and then really panic as the witness's car came towards them - not pull her body out of the vehicle and arrange her arms at her sides after the witness drove by.

While it could have been a prank or illegal hunting gone wrong, I'd have expected that sort of idiot to run off immediately, or to quickly look through the window or open the door and then really panic as the witness's car came towards them - not pull her body out of the vehicle and arrange her arms at her sides after the witness drove by.

That's actually part of the reason I think it was a hit. I think someone wanted to check that she was in fact dead, and move her where she'd be temporarily out of sight while he (or them) got out of the immediate area around Mineral Springs Mountain Road.

I don't think this person is a professional. I think he's something like an Elmo Florence.

That's actually part of the reason I think it was a hit. I think someone wanted to check that she was in fact dead, and move her where she'd be temporarily out of sight while he (or them) got out of the immediate area around Mineral Springs Mountain Road.

That makes sense. An accidental shooting would most likely result in the shooter leaving right away. A hitman would be more likely to check and see if she were alive. I just don't understand the guy making no attempt to hide when the witness drove past them. What good does pulling her body to the ground do and how much time does it really buy you? He could just as easily felt her wrist for a pulse and then taken off running, leaving her slumped over the steering wheel.

That makes sense. An accidental shooting would most likely result in the shooter leaving right away. A hitman would be more likely to check and see if she were alive. I just don't understand the guy making no attempt to hide when the witness drove past them. What good does pulling her body to the ground do and how much time does it really buy you? He could just as easily felt her wrist for a pulse and then taken off running, leaving her slumped over the steering wheel.

This is part of the reason I think this was an accidental shooting. The one witness to this case saw a car flying down the road (driving away from where Rhonda was found) before he saw the man holding Rhonda's body. I think the shooter was the one speeding away in a rush to get out of dodge. If there was a passenger with the shooter, who had felt some sort of remorse for Rhonda being shot, this would explain why someone would have went to the car, why they would let themselves be seen by a witness, and why this person would have attempted to pull Rhonda's body out of the car. A hitman would have done none of these things. Sure, they would have made sure she was dead. But a quick check of her pulse would have sufficed. It makes no sense for a hitman to pull her body from her car. It does however, make sense if it was someone who was attempting to revive/check on Rhonda.

Now that brings up the question: why hasn't this person come forward if Rhonda's death was in fact an accident? I think the main reason is simply out of fear for being implicated in her murder. If this person seen holding Rhonda's body was in fact not directly responsible for her death (aka the shooter), they still would be charged in this case in some capacity. And it's possible that the two of them (if there were two) made some sort of pact to keep quiet.

And as to the darkness of the road not being luminous enough for someone to shoot Rhonda, I disagree (in the context that this was an accidental shooting). Her breaklights alone would have illuminated her car enough for someone to have shot at it. Now if this were a hitman, or someone who was intent on murdering Rhonda, I don't see how this would have been possible on such a dark road. But if this were just some dumb teenagers shooting off a gun, they certainly would have had a huge target if they were simply aiming at her car and not trying to hit her directly.

A hitman would have done none of these things. Sure, they would have made sure she was dead. But a quick check of her pulse would have sufficed. It makes no sense for a hitman to pull her body from her car. It does however, make sense if it was someone who was attempting to revive/check on Rhonda.

A professional hitman, perhaps. An individual just paid to shoot someone may or may not have the good sense to check a pulse.

Which also begs the question--if someone is simply trying to revive or check on Rhonda, why would he or she not just check her pulse?

A professional hitman, perhaps. An individual just paid to shoot someone may or may not have the good sense to check a pulse.

Which also begs the question--if someone is simply trying to revive or check on Rhonda, why would he or she not just check her pulse?

Maybe this person was in a panic after she was shot, and in a frenzy tried to get her out of the vehicle after they found no pulse in a half-assed attempt to do CPR and try to revive her?

Maybe this person was in a panic after she was shot, and in a frenzy tried to get her out of the vehicle after they found no pulse in a half-assed attempt to do CPR and try to revive her?

Makes sense to me. I could see it going down like that. But I can also as easily see it happening the way I described as well. I can't discount her behavior before the murder. Something was going on in her life, and I think it might have had something to do with work.

Makes sense to me. I could see it going down like that. But I can also as easily see it happening the way I described as well. I can't discount her behavior before the murder. Something was going on in her life, and I think it might have had something to do with work.

I haven't seen the segment in quite some time, but IIRC wasn't there speculation that she was sexually assaulted? I don't know what to make out of the whole "married man" angle that was presented. It could just be a red herring, or maybe she was just infatuated with this married man who rebuffed her advances? This could explain her odd behavior.

I haven't seen the segment in quite some time, but IIRC wasn't there speculation that she was sexually assaulted? I don't know what to make out of the whole "married man" angle that was presented. It could just be a red herring, or maybe she was just infatuated with this married man who rebuffed her advances? This could explain her odd behavior.

The sexually assaulted angle was brought up in theory to her constantly taking showers in the middle of the night the weeks leading up to her death. The showers would wake her mother up and Rhonda would always say, "I just can't sleep, I feel dirty."

Rhonda also began asking her dad to accompany her into town whenever she ran errands, according to the segment. On one trip, she told her father that she had something she needed to tell him but was afraid of how he would react. In the interview, the dad said he told Rhonda that no matter how bad this issue was, to tell him anyway, and she still didn't end up saying a thing despite bringing it up herself.

The sexually assaulted angle was brought up in theory to her constantly taking showers in the middle of the night the weeks leading up to her death. The showers would wake her mother up and Rhonda would always say, "I just can't sleep, I feel dirty."

Rhonda also began asking her dad to accompany her into town whenever she ran errands, according to the segment. On one trip, she told her father that she had something she needed to tell him but was afraid of how he would react. In the interview, the dad said he told Rhonda that no matter how bad this issue was, to tell him anyway, and she still didn't end up saying a thing despite bringing it up herself.

That's what he said after the facts, and maybe he was sincere. However maybe it didn't come off like that at the time of when he was driving Rhonda, and she prefered keeping it shut. After all, they lived in a small town where everyone knew everyone and she didn't want to involve her family in a scandal.

My best guess is that either she was coerced into sex by either one of her superiors, a big client, or a senior colleague, or she wanted it but she felt shame or remorse about it. That's the only thing I can see why she would feel so ashamed that she would continually shower herself so late and speak of herself that way, while continuing to work there and maintain a facade of happiness at work.

The "person" had to be in a position enough that talking about it would lead to serious consequences. Or, maybe she wanted to protect the man in question, and she was afraid that if she told anything her parents would raise hell. Remember that, if we go by the segment, she opened up to her mother by asking "if it was ever allright to go out with a married man". The way she phrased it doesn't sound like "sexual abuse" or being coerced, but more like a young girl wanting or already being involved with a man who is already married. Maybe she felt that her mother would judge her, and she tried to open up to her dad afterwards but in the end decided not to.

I think it's entirely possible that Rhonda did go against her mother's advice and engage in an illicit affair with a married man, which would account for her behavior and her feeling ashamed.

The phone call to the boyfriend is pretty interesting, given the timing. Why not call him from her own home, to let him know that she arrived home safely?

A really good thread on this case: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=166193&page=2&highlight=rhon From post #26, it was being claimed during the filming of the segment that Rhonda had broken up with a boyfriend prior to her murder. That man's father supposedly was a minister and a hunter.

Nor do I think the perpetrator had to be someone with any greater proficiency than your average clay target shooter. While it could have been a prank or illegal hunting gone wrong, I'd have expected that sort of idiot to run off immediately, or to quickly look through the window or open the door and then really panic as the witness's car came towards them - not pull her body out of the vehicle and arrange her arms at her sides after the witness drove by.


I wonder if she told everyone she called the boyfriend but was really calling the married man. Surely, the person would have verified this call using phone records though.

The boyfriend/married man could be in question, and it was said she was stalked at night...

My theory is that I think both cars in the segment had something to do with the murder.

Rhonda called to say she was going home, and also somehow I think someone either knew Rhonda was going home and/or Rhonda called someone else before leaving.

Afterwards, Rhonda was shot and the two cars were seen.

The Blue GMC they said is probably the car that the killer and a friend used. The guy who witnessed it speeding away saw that car.

The dark Transam was probably the killer's car and he got it ready after he had messed with Rhonda's body.

That's my theory anyways... I still really wish this case would be solved.

It has been 31 years since Rhonda was murdered.

I would have thought that the Police could have made more of the fingerprint evidence-for example fingerprinting all adult males at her place of work. Is there any significance in where the car was found-so close to home?

This is a very good case and segment. You know, I might be the only one that thinks that car speeding away didn't have anything to do with the shooting. Look, we know the one eyewitness just basically drove by why wouldn't someone else? It looked like a rather lonely road so is it really out of the ordinary to be speeding? I have to wonder about the witness. Not that he was guilty or involved but why didn't he do more? Perhaps he gets shot too if he stops but he didn't know that, he just thought the couple was drunk. Even if that's what he thought then what is wrong with rolling down your window and shouting "Are you okay?" to the guy? In that situation you can at least check up on a supposedly drunk couple.

I think the key to this case has a lot to do with the person pulling her out of her car. This is why I may lean on it being an accident. The guy is in a panic after fooling around with a shotgun and cars. He kills her by accident and possibly the other car (if it was involved) sped away in the other direction. Neither person comes forward of course. It was probably a sloppy and panic ridden way to make it look like a car accident. The "killer" probably wasn't thinking straight that it would be discovered she was shot.

As for Rhonda's weird behaviour it could be relevant, or she could just flat out be a 19 year old girl. I was a young man at one time and the naive decisions I made because I "fell" for someone could have easily ended up with me being with a married woman (I wasn't though). Rhonda could have been pursued by a married man, sought out her mother for advice, didn't listen to her mother, continued the illicit affair and showered because she felt guilty. The paranoia could have stemmed from being afraid the guy's wife would confront her. Honestly, that's all it could be. The shooting could be unrelated to the affair.

This is a very good case and segment. You know, I might be the only one that thinks that car speeding away didn't have anything to do with the shooting. Look, we know the one eyewitness just basically drove by why wouldn't someone else? It looked like a rather lonely road so is it really out of the ordinary to be speeding? I have to wonder about the witness. Not that he was guilty or involved but why didn't he do more? Perhaps he gets shot too if he stops but he didn't know that, he just thought the couple was drunk. Even if that's what he thought then what is wrong with rolling down your window and shouting "Are you okay?" to the guy? In that situation you can at least check up on a supposedly drunk couple.

I think the key to this case has a lot to do with the person pulling her out of her car. This is why I may lean on it being an accident. The guy is in a panic after fooling around with a shotgun and cars. He kills her by accident and possibly the other car (if it was involved) sped away in the other direction. Neither person comes forward of course. It was probably a sloppy and panic ridden way to make it look like a car accident. The "killer" probably wasn't thinking straight that it would be discovered she was shot.

As for Rhonda's weird behaviour it could be relevant, or she could just flat out be a 19 year old girl. I was a young man at one time and the naive decisions I made because I "fell" for someone could have easily ended up with me being with a married woman (I wasn't though). Rhonda could have been pursued by a married man, sought out her mother for advice, didn't listen to her mother, continued the illicit affair and showered because she felt guilty. The paranoia could have stemmed from being afraid the guy's wife would confront her. Honestly, that's all it could be. The shooting could be unrelated to the affair.

It could be but something important to remember about this case is those intriguing file cabinets full of information pertaining to the Hinson case in the Burke County Sheriff's Office. To me that speaks of something beyond a simple accident and I've always felt that the police may have a suspect or suspects in mind but have never been able to either connect the dots or gather enough evidence against these individuals.

It looked like a rather lonely road so is it really out of the ordinary to be speeding?

What's interesting about Mineral Springs Mountain Rd is actually just the opposite: it's kind of busy. It takes you from I-40 right into town after a mile and a half or so. Along the way there are residential roads you can turn onto (Rhonda and her parents actually lived just off MSM Rd). Rhonda's car was found just some hundred feet from the I-40W on-ramp.

What's interesting about Mineral Springs Mountain Rd is actually just the opposite: it's kind of busy. It takes you from I-40 right into town after a mile and a half or so. Along the way there are residential roads you can turn onto (Rhonda and her parents actually lived just off MSM Rd). Rhonda's car was found just some hundred feet from the I-40W on-ramp.

Did not know this. UM portrayed the road like it was desolate. Another possible theory I have (although it's probably the most unlikely of the proposed theories so far) is some type of mistaken hit. Maybe the whole "married man" thing was the family's attempt to grasp at straws for a reason why Rhonda was murdered.

What is perplexing to me is the way in which she was killed. If you are planning to kill someone, are you going to literally take a shot in the dark at relatively long range at a moving target? We know that killers do not always do the smartest things, but this just seems like a very low probability way to go about killing someone, which, to me, points toward an accidental shooting scenario. A random, accidental shooting would also help to explain why the case has remained unsolved for so long.

As other posters have said, the man apparently checking on her afterward would also fit this theory, although I think it is also possible that, as the segment states, it could have been a passerby who wanted nothing to do with being at the scene after he realized that she was dead.

As for the cars at the scene, if this was an accidental shooting, I suppose the people could have gone to that spot in their own vehicles (possibly to hang out, drink, smoke, do some "target practice"), then after the shooting, the one person drives off in a hurry and the other person, through guilt or panic, decides to check to see if the victim is dead.

All of that said, of course we can't discount what was going on in her personal life. It seems to me that indeed she could have been carrying on an affair with a married man. Not being able to sleep and showering because she "felt dirty" would make sense if she felt guilty and/or unsure of what she was involved in. Whether any of this is related to her death, obviously it is difficult to say.

Feh. I don't buy the accident theory. How many people go off shooting guns at random and driving at night? Not too many that I know of. Plus, wasn't there a car that was seen hiding out with its lights off in the area, that was seen following Rhonda?

Plus, I think you have to look at the other side of the coin: what are the odds that a person firing off a random shot could kill Rhonda like that?

yeah, this was no accident.

There was one shot fired, and it entered the trunk of her car. Unless this was a professional hitman, I don't see how someone intent on killing Rhonda would be that precise to know that the bullet would have traveled through the trunk and then through the driver's seat and then into Rhonda. The bullet could have ricocheted off of anything in the car and never even hit her. According to the Burke County Sheriff's office website, they say there are "medical opinions" that state Rhonda would have been incapacitated after being shot. So how did her body get out of the car? Why would a hitman care to even move her body at all? And why not go for the "coup de grace" and shoot her again to make sure she's dead? All signs, IMO, point to either a mistaken hit or just an accidental shooting.

Feh. I don't buy the accident theory. How many people go off shooting guns at random and driving at night? Not too many that I know of. Plus, wasn't there a car that was seen hiding out with its lights off in the area, that was seen following Rhonda?

Plus, I think you have to look at the other side of the coin: what are the odds that a person firing off a random shot could kill Rhonda like that?

yeah, this was no accident.

Yes, the odds are very long either way, which, in my opinion, provides more support for the accident theory than the premeditated act theory. This was a VERY clumsy hit, if in fact that's what it was. It is such a low probability way of killing someone. And then the killer goes to check on her by pulling her out of the car, and instead of just shooting her again, he takes the time to ascertain whether or not she is dead and then leaves her there? I don't know. Of course I'm not ruling out the possibility that she was specificaly targetted (especially given her possible personal life issues), but the circumstances are very strange.

Do we know that the car was seen following her? I thought that the segment just said that it was seen parked near the crime scene earlier that night.

There was one shot fired, and it entered the trunk of her car. Unless this was a professional hitman, I don't see how someone intent on killing Rhonda would be that precise to know that the bullet would have traveled through the trunk and then through the driver's seat and then into Rhonda. The bullet could have ricocheted off of anything in the car and never even hit her. According to the Burke County Sheriff's office website, they say there are "medical opinions" that state Rhonda would have been incapacitated after being shot. So how did her body get out of the car? Why would a hitman care to even move her body at all? And why not go for the "coup de grace" and shoot her again to make sure she's dead? All signs, IMO, point to either a mistaken hit or just an accidental shooting.

True. I assume that there is almost no way that the shooter could have been that precise in the dark, at relatively long range, and shooting at a (presumably) moving target. As many people have said on these threads, it was indeed a very "lucky" (and sadly, very unlucky for Rhonda) shot.

I suppose the killer could have gotten Rhonda to stop, and then she became frightened and drove off, leaving the killer with only one option: to take the low probability shot from behind. The killer pulling her from the vehicle makes very little sense, unless we assume that the killer simply wasn't all that bright - which is certainly possible. Or that person was actually an uninvolved passerby, which is less likely in my opinion.

Nonetheless, at the risk of stereotyping, I can see some good-ole boy type young guys sitting around under the bridge, drinking, smoking, and deciding to do some target practice on the next car that drives by. As we know, people do some incomprehensibly stupid things. What night of the week was this?

Nonetheless, at the risk of stereotyping, I can see some good-ole boy type young guys sitting around under the bridge, drinking, smoking, and deciding to do some target practice on the next car that drives by. As we know, people do some incomprehensibly stupid things. What night of the week was this?

The company party was on a Tuesday night. Rhonda left the party at midnight, so the shooting was technically on Wednesday. Christmas was two days later on Friday.

The company party was on a Tuesday night. Rhonda left the party at midnight, so the shooting was technically on Wednesday. Christmas was two days later on Friday.

Okay. I would think that an accidental shooting would be more likely on a weekend night, but who knows. If you're out randomly shooting your gun, you might not be too concerned about being out late on a weeknight!

On a different note, I would think that if she was having an affair with someone (perhaps someone from work), or being sexually harrassed or something of the like, then someone would have known about it. If this was not an accident, then maybe it is one of those cases in which everyone has a pretty good idea who did it, but no way of proving it.

I wonder if she told everyone she called the boyfriend but was really calling the married man. Surely, the person would have verified this call using phone records though.

Maybe Rhonda did have a boyfriend at the time, and she cheated on him with a married man, or she started dating someone recently before the murder, and either she had cut all links or she kept contact with her married man.

These possibilities don't make her any less of a victim, IMHO. People, even experienced people, can do wrong things they'd never otherwise do because they are in love/lust.

For all we know, the said "married man", if he exists, might be totally innocent of her death and still keep it secret because it means admitting he was shagging an underage employee while being a married father, whom mysteriously turned up dead.


On a different note, I would think that if she was having an affair with someone (perhaps someone from work), or being sexually harrassed or something of the like, then someone would have known about it.

Not if both parties kept their mouths shut about it and were careful enough not to be sloppy and leave traces, especially if the relationship would be widely seen as shameful. While Rhonda was not legally underage, she was still very young, too young to get involved with someone maybe twice her age or more in a position of authority. Both would have incentives to keep quiet (the married man would lose his family, work reputation, and assets in a divorce, Rhonda risks being seen as a promiscuous slag, be rejected by her family and peers, and risk that no boy her age in her small town would want to date her seriously).

The closest we have on the subject, is her almost confiding to her parents but she didn't out of fear of being judged or causing trouble involving her family. It's not that certain that her parents would have been supportive of her at the moment if she had talked, even if they say (after the fact) that they would have been.

Not if both parties kept their mouths shut about it and were careful enough not to be sloppy and leave traces, especially if the relationship would be widely seen as shameful. While Rhonda was not legally underage, she was still very young, too young to get involved with someone maybe twice her age or more in a position of authority. Both would have incentives to keep quiet (the married man would lose his family, work reputation, and assets in a divorce, Rhonda risks being seen as a promiscuous slag, be rejected by her family and peers, and risk that no boy her age in her small town would want to date her seriously).

The closest we have on the subject, is her almost confiding to her parents but she didn't out of fear of being judged or causing trouble involving her family. It's not that certain that her parents would have been supportive of her at the moment if she had talked, even if they say (after the fact) that they would have been.

I agree with everything you said. I do think, however, that with human nature being what it is - specifically, people's propensity to make mistakes and to not cover their tracks completely; people's need to "unburden" themselves to someone - it is quite possible that word of such an affair or incident(s) could have leaked out. I imagine that Hickory is not the largest of places, either.

I agree with everything you said. I do think, however, that with human nature being what it is - specifically, people's propensity to make mistakes and to not cover their tracks completely; people's need to "unburden" themselves to someone - it is quite possible that word of such an affair or incident(s) could have leaked out. I imagine that Hickory is not the largest of places, either.

But she did attempt to unburden herself - to her parents, that's how we suspect that something sexual was going on. Ultimately she didn't, but that tells that the only people she would be capable to talk about this kind of situation on this was her parents. She might have been savvy enough to know that leaking this to her friends would only damage her reputation in small town Hickory.

I would agree with you about people's propensity to make mistakes, but from my understanding of the case she mentioned a "married man" to her mother a bare few months before she was killed. It is entirely possible that the timeframe was very short between the start of the affair and her death, before any of them could let something slip or major consequences happen.

That's why I suspect that the whole "affair with a married man" might be a red herring in this case.

But she did attempt to unburden herself - to her parents, that's how we suspect that something sexual was going on. Ultimately she didn't, but that tells that the only people she would be capable to talk about this kind of situation on this was her parents. She might have been savvy enough to know that leaking this to her friends would only damage her reputation in small town Hickory.

I would agree with you about people's propensity to make mistakes, but from my understanding of the case she mentioned a "married man" to her mother a bare few months before she was killed. It is entirely possible that the timeframe was very short between the start of the affair and her death, before any of them could let something slip or major consequences happen.

That's why I suspect that the whole "affair with a married man" might be a red herring in this case.

When it comes to her love life, I would think that she would be more likely to confide in a close friend than her parents, but who knows. Everyone handles things differently.

I agree that while it is certainly intriguing, the whole "affair with a married man" might be a red herring here. I am inclined to believe that it may have been a random act of stupidity, but of course, it's difficult to tell. There is so little for us to go on in this case.