I was surprised to find a recent article about her case on the Fox News website today. I'm glad they are still trying to find her killer and hopefully they can solve this mystery one day soon.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/22/who-killed-rhonda-family-looks-for-answers-in-34-year-old-cold-case-murder.html?intcmp=hplnws

Just read the article. Has always been one of my personal "favorite" cases (if that is the right way to label a UM case.) This is great to get this level of national attention after all of these years and, I have a feeling it is making the guilty party feel a little nervous (or maybe to the point of finally coming forward.) Would love to see more of these unsolved cases get in the national spotlight again.

That article mentioned some things I don't think we knew before....unless they're buried somewhere in the long Rhonda Hinson thread and I forgot. But in particular:

1. She was torn about going to the party that night but never told her family why. Add that to the list of troubling issues she brought up to her parents that was bothering her yet refusing to clarify why it was bothering her.

2. She had a boyfriend. This is the first I've ever heard of that. The only hint we got to her love life before was her asking her mom if it was ever OK to date a married man. And apparently the boyfriend was home from college and he did not want her to go to the party.

3. Her original plan was to spend the night at her girlfriend's house after leaving the party. Why she chose to come home instead is anybody's guess.

That article mentioned some things I don't think we knew before....unless they're buried somewhere in the long Rhonda Hinson thread and I forgot. But in particular:

1. She was torn about going to the party that night but never told her family why. Add that to the list of troubling issues she brought up to her parents that was bothering her yet refusing to clarify why it was bothering her.

2. She had a boyfriend. This is the first I've ever heard of that. The only hint we got to her love life before was her asking her mom if it was ever OK to date a married man. And apparently the boyfriend was home from college and he did not want her to go to the party.

3. Her original plan was to spend the night at her girlfriend's house after leaving the party. Why she chose to come home instead is anybody's guess.

No offense, but you talk about the boyfriend in a few of the other threads on this case.

That is interesting though that both her and the boyfriend were apprehensive about her going to the party. I have always thought since first viewing this segment many years ago that an older male coworker was either raping her or pressuring her into sex (blackmail or what have you). I still feel that's the case. I also feel he probably wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, but hired the person who did.

That's unfortunate about her changed plans. Gotta wonder how things would have played out had she stuck with her original plans.

A Christmas party should be a joyous time. That neither of them wanted to go tells me there was somebody there she was afraid of.

It almost makes me wonder if the boyfriend was somewhat controlling and almost "forbid" Rhonda from going to the party, but she decided to go anyway. Maybe that is why one of the theories was that the boyfriend/his father were the culprits. Makes some bit of sense if you look at it from that angle.

It almost makes me wonder if the boyfriend was somewhat controlling and almost "forbid" Rhonda from going to the party, but she decided to go anyway. Maybe that is why one of the theories was that the boyfriend/his father were the culprits. Makes some bit of sense if you look at it from that angle.

I"ve never heard of that angle. In any event, there were two distinct cars noticed by eyewitnesses. I believe a Chevelle and a Trans Am IIRC, as well as fingerprints. It seems if either one or both were the perps, that could be traced back to them.

How great that they have DNA on her sweater. If only they could test the boyfriend. Is this the same girl who said in the segment, "Is it ever okay to go with a married man?" Could be him or his wife.

I remember the name but trying to remember which case this was. Is this the one that walked to the store for her dad and never came back?

I remember the name but trying to remember which case this was. Is this the one that walked to the store for her dad and never came back?

No, that was Kari Lynn Nixon.

Rhonda was a young woman who was driving back to her parent's house from a Christmas party when she was shot through the back window of her car. The bullet went through the seat and into her heart. Various witnesses saw differnet cars, including one sitting idle with its lights off (this was at night) as well as a man who seemed to be pulling Rhonda from her car.

I remember that one now. I always figured it was someone that knew her but hard to tell for sure.

this case is odd because of where she was shot. the bullet came from behind on a stretch of road leading up a hill from the interstate and she was hit at the last possible moment before she crested the hill. the shot went through the light in the rear of the car and hit her in the driver's seat. very odd way to deliberately kill someone. seems the shooter was aiming at the taillight and could hardly expect a kill shot. seems like it was either random or a warning shot that went wrong.

seems the shooter was aiming at the taillight and could hardly expect a kill shot. seems like it was either random or a warning shot that went wrong.

I don't believe that at all. If you point a gun in the same direction in close proximity and pull the trigger, you have to assume that the person can wind up murdered. If it was a warning shot, why wasn't it fired higher in the air? And considering all of the weird stuff going on in her life at the time, I highly doubt it was random either.

I don't believe that at all. If you point a gun in the same direction in close proximity and pull the trigger, you have to assume that the person can wind up murdered. If it was a warning shot, why wasn't it fired higher in the air? And considering all of the weird stuff going on in her life at the time, I highly doubt it was random either.


a shooter could hardly expect a kill shot fired from a bit of a distance (at least 100 meters, probably closer to 200) fired through the exterior of the car and two seats into the victim. Even with the high powered rifle, one could not expect the round to not be deflected. the success of the shot had to be of a low probability. it would have been better for a killer to plant themselves somewhere in front of the victim and fire through her front windshield or the hide somewhere near her house (which was just down the street) where they could have got her walking from her car.

the distance can be calculated by the trajectory of the shot- fired in a straight trajectory through the rear left of the car. If fired from close the shooter would have had to be standing almost in the middle of the road when he fired. the shooter was probably down by the underpass of the interstate where the distance would allow him to stand beside the road.

also if the shooter intended to kill the victim, why did they not fire when she was closer (she would have had to have turned the corner near the shooter)

it seems the shooter was aiming for the taillight (it was nighttime). Maybe she almost ran him over when turning the corner and he was there totally random and he fired at the light as a warning or out of anger. apparently someone stopped at her car before the authorities arrived because either the door was open (and she was killed instantly with the car veering across the road to the left) or someone saw the car parked nearby.

I'd conject the shooter (maybe a hunter) fired either out of anger or for fun (ever see those signs with all the bullet holes in them?) and was shocked to see the car jerk off the road and came to investigate. Finding the victim dead he (or they) got out of the area quickly. Since the incident was totally random, it is easy to see how it was never solved.

a shooter could hardly expect a kill shot fired from a bit of a distance (at least 100 meters, probably closer to 200) fired through the exterior of the car and two seats into the victim. Even with the high powered rifle, one could not expect the round to not be deflected. the success of the shot had to be of a low probability. it would have been better for a killer to plant themselves somewhere in front of the victim and fire through her front windshield or the hide somewhere near her house (which was just down the street) where they could have got her walking from her car.

the distance can be calculated by the trajectory of the shot- fired in a straight trajectory through the rear left of the car. If fired from close the shooter would have had to be standing almost in the middle of the road when he fired. the shooter was probably down by the underpass of the interstate where the distance would allow him to stand beside the road.

also if the shooter intended to kill the victim, why did they not fire when she was closer (she would have had to have turned the corner near the shooter)

it seems the shooter was aiming for the taillight (it was nighttime). Maybe she almost ran him over when turning the corner and he was there totally random and he fired at the light as a warning or out of anger. apparently someone stopped at her car before the authorities arrived because either the door was open (and she was killed instantly with the car veering across the road to the left) or someone saw the car parked nearby.

I'd conject the shooter (maybe a hunter) fired either out of anger or for fun (ever see those signs with all the bullet holes in them?) and was shocked to see the car jerk off the road and came to investigate. Finding the victim dead he (or they) got out of the area quickly. Since the incident was totally random, it is easy to see how it was never solved.

you say "cannot be meant as a kill shot." Are you able to get inside the killer's mind?

Pointing a gun in the direction of a car that someone is driving and firing is intending to kill someone. Because the shooter cannot know exactly how fast the driver will drive, where they will drive, or where the bullet will land, he/she must take into account there is a very much a possibility that they can inflict death.

Your theories about how the shooter would have been better off killing her near her house (with a large number of potential witnesses) or coming at her from the front (where she could duck, drive away) would involve too much chance for the killer.

it seems the shooter was aiming for the taillight (it was nighttime)

Please explain why you have come to this conclusion.

Maybe she almost ran him over when turning the corner and he was there totally random and he fired at the light as a warning or out of anger.

Or maybe that didn't happen at all.

I'd conject the shooter (maybe a hunter) fired either out of anger or for fun (ever see those signs with all the bullet holes in them?)

There's a huge difference between shooting at a inanimate object and shooting at a person driving a vehicle. For all they knew, Rhonda could have drove with her injuries, collapsed at the wheel later on and hit other people on the road that night. I don't know anyone who would do that "just for fun." There's been a handful of these weirdos shooting at random cars in the news lately. Thankfully, I think most of them have been locked up.

I could care less whether it was intentional or not on the part of the shooter. They killed her, they deserve to pay for it.

a shooter could hardly expect a kill shot fired from a bit of a distance (at least 100 meters, probably closer to 200) fired through the exterior of the car and two seats into the victim. Even with the high powered rifle, one could not expect the round to not be deflected. the success of the shot had to be of a low probability. it would have been better for a killer to plant themselves somewhere in front of the victim and fire through her front windshield or the hide somewhere near her house (which was just down the street) where they could have got her walking from her car.

the distance can be calculated by the trajectory of the shot- fired in a straight trajectory through the rear left of the car. If fired from close the shooter would have had to be standing almost in the middle of the road when he fired. the shooter was probably down by the underpass of the interstate where the distance would allow him to stand beside the road.

also if the shooter intended to kill the victim, why did they not fire when she was closer (she would have had to have turned the corner near the shooter)

it seems the shooter was aiming for the taillight (it was nighttime). Maybe she almost ran him over when turning the corner and he was there totally random and he fired at the light as a warning or out of anger. apparently someone stopped at her car before the authorities arrived because either the door was open (and she was killed instantly with the car veering across the road to the left) or someone saw the car parked nearby.

I'd conject the shooter (maybe a hunter) fired either out of anger or for fun (ever see those signs with all the bullet holes in them?) and was shocked to see the car jerk off the road and came to investigate. Finding the victim dead he (or they) got out of the area quickly. Since the incident was totally random, it is easy to see how it was never solved.

I do agree with this post in that I don't think Rhonda was personally targeted. You would have to be practically a sharpshooter to be able to shoot to kill in a moving vehicle. The fact that Rhonda was removed from her car, in my opinion, supports that. If you are trying to kill a specific person in a car and you hit them you would probably just leave once you were successful. The fact that she was removed from her car makes me think the shooter approached to check on her condition and panicked after realizing she was dead.

I do agree with this post in that I don't think Rhonda was personally targeted. You would have to be practically a sharpshooter to be able to shoot to kill in a moving vehicle. The fact that Rhonda was removed from her car, in my opinion, supports that. If you are trying to kill a specific person in a car and you hit them you would probably just leave once you were successful. The fact that she was removed from her car makes me think the shooter approached to check on her condition and panicked after realizing she was dead.

It was also such a long shot too. Shot from under the I-40 bridge. Just look how far of a distance it is to where she ended up....

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

Out in the country, there are very few street lights. It's practically pitch dark. If a killer was waiting specifically for her under the bridge, how would he have known that was her car unless he had the headlights on on HIS car shining on the exit ramp?...and doing that would have just majorly drawn attention to himself for any other motorists who drove by.

I could care less whether it was intentional or not on the part of the shooter. They killed her, they deserve to pay for it.

How much less could you care?

Well, I think the most infamous case of somebody shooting someone in a moving vehicle is Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of JFK, and I think it's pretty obvious he intended to kill him. It does happen. Granted, that car wasn't moving as fast, but experts still maintained Oswald have required "sharpshooter" status to pull it off.

Well, I think the most infamous case of somebody shooting someone in a moving vehicle is Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of JFK, and I think it's pretty obvious he intended to kill him. It does happen. Granted, that car wasn't moving as fast, but experts still maintained Oswald have required "sharpshooter" status to pull it off.

Oswald's shot was about the same distance but he had elevation, daylight, a scope and the target was moving away from him but very slowly and on a straight line. Still he missed the first (close) shot which hit a traffic sign and hit low with the second shot.

Nevertheless he did not aim for the limo's taillight intending to get a kill shot hoping the bullet would still reach the victim. For his third shot all he did was shift his aim up a couple of inches.

The reason this case was never solved was that it was motiveless. Sure they dug into her life and came up with vague people and situations but that would happen if they reviewed anyone's life who died violently and unexpectedly. Whoever shot at her must have been doing it as a prank (more likely) (like shooting at a sign- we've all seen those bullet holes, maybe she almost hit the shooter while passing by him) or was a warning (less likely).

I"ve never heard of that angle. In any event, there were two distinct cars noticed by eyewitnesses. I believe a Chevelle and a Trans Am IIRC, as well as fingerprints. It seems if either one or both were the perps, that could be traced back to them.

not if the fingerprints were not on file... one of the two cars, probably the Chevelle, was probably the shooters checking on the victim because they were shocked they killed her. Upon discovering that their freak, prank shot had killed her, they got out of there. since it was random and they were not previous criminals, no way to trace back to them.

you say "cannot be meant as a kill shot." Are you able to get inside the killer's mind?

Pointing a gun in the direction of a car that someone is driving and firing is intending to kill someone. Because the shooter cannot know exactly how fast the driver will drive, where they will drive, or where the bullet will land, he/she must take into account there is a very much a possibility that they can inflict death.

Your theories about how the shooter would have been better off killing her near her house (with a large number of potential witnesses) or coming at her from the front (where she could duck, drive away) would involve too much chance for the killer.



Please explain why you have come to this conclusion.



Or maybe that didn't happen at all.



There's a huge difference between shooting at a inanimate object and shooting at a person driving a vehicle. For all they knew, Rhonda could have drove with her injuries, collapsed at the wheel later on and hit other people on the road that night. I don't know anyone who would do that "just for fun." There's been a handful of these weirdos shooting at random cars in the news lately. Thankfully, I think most of them have been locked up.

I could care less whether it was intentional or not on the part of the shooter. They killed her, they deserve to pay for it.


In this case we can kind of get "into the mind of a killer."

First he has to have some sort of a motive. Then they have to have an opportunity. When digging into Rhonda's life they found several people with motives (as they would in almost anyone's life if checked) but none of them had the opportunity. And they never found anyone with the opportunity who had motive (because the shooter was not trying to kill her).

Second, common sense says that if you are planning to deliberately kill someone you set up the situation both to maximize success and to facilitate your ability to get away with it. Even Annie Oakley would not expect aiming at a taillight (no street lights, night, little bit of a distance and the trajectory all make this most likely) would kill the driver. So the scenario for a deliberate murder really was not there. Shooting her near her house would be about as dangerous as shooting her where she was (off an interstate exit that was the main road into town) but be much more likely to succeed. It was late at night, most people would have been asleep and not alerted until they were gone and even if someone saw the car, someone saw the car in the actual scenario as well.

Lastly deliberation is the difference between murder and manslaughter, so it is a little important. If this shooter had come forward at the time and admitted it was a random shot fired as target practice at a taillight or because the victim almost ran them over or some other dumb reason, they'd have got manslaughter and been out of jail many years ago.


Any claims that shooting to the trunk is better than shooting from the front through the windshield because she could "dodge the shot and drive away" are too ridiculous to even discuss. The first indication the victim would have that she was being shot at would be the bullet going through the windshield.

Killers are non superhuman robots. They are like everyone else except they don't care (or care less) about killing someone. They are not magically capable of deliberately killing someone in an unlikely scenario, nor would they expect to be able to do so.

For many years, I thought this was an instance of someone (likely an older, married man employed at, or associated with, Rhonda's place of business) hiring an Elmo Florence-type to kill Rhonda--for whatever reason, presumably that she was about to end and/or expose their illicit relationship.

Over the past few, however, I've reconsidered my position and examined it critically. The reports from Rhonda's parents that she had questions about whether it was "ever ok to go with a married man", that she had something she wanted to tell them "but was afraid to", and that she was taking showers in the middle of the night seem to indicate, as is pointed out in the segment, that Rhonda was experiencing some kind of stress in her life. To that much, I certainly agree. However, there simply isn't a shred of evidence we (as in us, here, on the board) have access to that suggest Rhonda was personally involved in anything (let alone an illicit affair) herself. For all we know, she could've been distressed for a close friend, or had information on a coworker that was difficult to keep to herself, or any other number of potential situations. The "married man affair" angle is one I feel we've pieced together from a limited set of data in order to pound pegs into holes, because firstly, it satisfies our very human need to fill in informational blanks. We as a species would rather have an explanation, no matter how ambivalent, when a solid "I don't know" would probably do just fine. Secondly, it appears to be the angle UM wanted to present, what with the reenacted conversations with her parents, and taking showers in the middle of night being tagged as "behavior common in women who have been sexually abused" (when other explanations could be just as easily substituted). I'm not saying that the "married man affair" angle couldn't be what happened. But I certainly don't think the evidence available to us is anywhere near conclusive, and for that reason, I'm setting that theory aside for now.

RE: the shooting. I have been to the site, although that's been about 6-7 years ago, and I know at least one poster here lives near it. I took photographs the day I was there, and all of them are posted in another thread on this board. The thing that most profoundly struck me the day I visited was the incline from the location underneath the I-40 bridge to the location Rhonda's vehicle was found (which is roughly marked by a cross on the left side of the road). It seems it would've been a foolish place to select for firing on the vehicle that one knows is going to exit the interstate and turn north, up the hill, onto the road, with the intent of killing the vehicle's driver. One would do far better, in theory, to choose a spot in the brush alongside Mineral Springs Mountain Rd, or perhaps even from atop the I-40 bridge. We know, however, that the round was fired from behind and traveled through the trunk of Rhonda's car, through her seat, and out her body. In conjunction with the unnecessary difficulty the shooting location poses, the keen understanding of ballistics and firearms one would likely have to possess in order to point and fire that weapon at the trunk of a moving vehicle confident that the driver would be killed seems to make for an unlikely scenario. I would be more apt to think someone--hired or not--would have been trying to scare her in such a situation as opposed to attempting to murder her.

But I don't know the motive behind why someone fired on Rhonda's vehicle. I know I don't have enough information to surmise it was a murder conspiracy, and that I do have evidence that may suggest the intent of the shooter wasn't to kill the driver.

Pointing a gun in the direction of a car that someone is driving and firing is intending to kill someone. Because the shooter cannot know exactly how fast the driver will drive, where they will drive, or where the bullet will land, he/she must take into account there is a very much a possibility that they can inflict death.

A responsible and/or trained individual would likely concur. However, not every shooter is responsible, and not every shooter is trained. Although the shooter is ultimately accountable for what happened to Rhonda, there is a great difference between someone ambushing a person with a definite intent to murder them and an idiot perhaps trying to spook drivers by taking potshots at tail lights or bumpers without any regard to the potential consequences.

Good response... not every gun shot is intended to kill even if that is the result. The location and direction of the shooting and the shot make it unlikely that the shooter intended to kill her no matter what the motive was for shooting in her direction. And you are right there were many far better ways of killing her if that was someone's intention.

Some various thoughts. I don't know how any of these pieces fit together, but wanted to point them out.

-An article I read today stated that Rhonda's car was in the process of mounting the hill when she was shot. It rolled backward, passed through the other lane, then went off slightly into the ditch. For some reason, I never noticed that in the UM segment, but it is correct, she passed through the other lane.

-Does anybody know what time Rhonda was shot? What I know is the blue Chevelle was spotted between 12:15 and 12;30. Judy Hinson woke up from her sleep at precisely 1:00 a.m. That leaves us with a potential of as much as 45 minutes (maybe longer, maybe shorter) from the time the Chevelle was spotted and Rhonda's shooting.

If that is the case, I think the likelihood of random attack goes down. I don't believe a car would be sitting out there for that long where any number of potential witnesses could see it. And in fact, two people did come forward to say they saw it, but it could have been even more. I also believe that in a random attack, the shooter would have taken the first target that came along. I don't think he/they would have had to wait in the neighborhood of 45 minutes to find one.

-The location is interesting, right near the expressway. It provides easy and quick access to a fast getaway for the shooter. Granted, it appears that the shooter may not have made a quick exit, but I think he had some doubt as to whether or not the shot had killed Rhonda or just injured her. I tend to think the guy that witness saw was the murderer and was checking to see if he finished the job.

-And lastly, the segment mentions "high powered rifle". I don't know about guns, but this sounds different from "hunting rifle". Perhaps I'm wrong and someone with more knowledge on this subject can fill me in.

Meg brings up an excellent point. What if the, "is it ever OK to go with a married man," question she asked her mother was in regards to a friend and not actually herself?

We saw what happened to Mikki Jo West when she tried to convince a friend to end a relationship. It was not very long before she was killed for it. It seems like a more logical motive here for her to be targeted if that was indeed what happened.

-Does anybody know what time Rhonda was shot? What I know is the blue Chevelle was spotted between 12:15 and 12;30. Judy Hinson woke up from her sleep at precisely 1:00 a.m. That leaves us with a potential of as much as 45 minutes (maybe longer, maybe shorter) from the time the Chevelle was spotted and Rhonda's shooting.

If that is the case, I think the likelihood of random attack goes down. I don't believe a car would be sitting out there for that long where any number of potential witnesses could see it. And in fact, two people did come forward to say they saw it, but it could have been even more. I also believe that in a random attack, the shooter would have taken the first target that came along. I don't think he/they would have had to wait in the neighborhood of 45 minutes to find one.

According to what Rhonda's parents stated, moments after Judy awoke Rhonda's father Bobby got up and turned on the police scanner in their bedroom. Now, if the content of what was heard on the scanner is accurate in the reenactment, dispatch was right in the middle of alerting a unit to Rhonda's car:

Officer: 120, go ahead Burke.

Dispatch: 120, check a vehicle vicinity of Mineral Springs Mountain and I-40. Complainant reports blood in front seat of same.

Technically, this would have been possibly as much as 45 minutes between the estimated time the witness reported seeing the Chevelle underneath the bridge, and the time a police unit was dispatched to Rhonda's car (rather than the shooting itself). Again, I'm presuming the reenactment is accurate here.

If we're saying that the shooter was indeed in the Chevelle reported underneath the bridge that night, the shooting, Rhonda being pulled out of her car, a call to the Burke Co Sheriff's Department from a citizen concerning the vehicle, and the dispatch call to a police unit would all need to have occurred within the span of those 45 minutes--which I do think is plausible, although I'm not necessarily dead-set on the Chevelle and whomever was in it being involved.

The location is interesting, right near the expressway. It provides easy and quick access to a fast getaway for the shooter. Granted, it appears that the shooter may not have made a quick exit, but I think he had some doubt as to whether or not the shot had killed Rhonda or just injured her. I tend to think the guy that witness saw was the murderer and was checking to see if he finished the job.

I agree the location does provide for a rapid exit, although if the shooter was someone who specifically intended to kill Rhonda I would assume he or she would've selected it because he/she would've known that's the exit Rhonda would have to take to get to her home about half a mile away.

I also agree that the man the witness reported seeing very well could've been the shooter.

-And lastly, the segment mentions "high powered rifle". I don't know about guns, but this sounds different from "hunting rifle". Perhaps I'm wrong and someone with more knowledge on this subject can fill me in.

'High power rifle' does have a strict definition in the realm of competitive shooting, but the way I understand it, most people tend to use the term loosely to describe weapons like the .308 and .30-06 (lots of things in the 30-caliber range, actually). Military rifles such as the M-16 (civilian AR-15, which fires 5.56 ammunition) and the AK-47 (which fires 7.62 ammo) are also often considered high power rifles.

People do hunt with all of these, and they're not uncommon firearms.

Found this, FWIW. Not sure if it's been posted in another thread already:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19820120&id=wcwyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vyYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2832,3663097&hl=en

For many years, I thought this was an instance of someone (likely an older, married man employed at, or associated with, Rhonda's place of business) hiring an Elmo Florence-type to kill Rhonda--for whatever reason, presumably that she was about to end and/or expose their illicit relationship.

Over the past few, however, I've reconsidered my position and examined it critically. The reports from Rhonda's parents that she had questions about whether it was "ever ok to go with a married man", that she had something she wanted to tell them "but was afraid to", and that she was taking showers in the middle of the night seem to indicate, as is pointed out in the segment, that Rhonda was experiencing some kind of stress in her life. To that much, I certainly agree. However, there simply isn't a shred of evidence we (as in us, here, on the board) have access to that suggest Rhonda was personally involved in anything (let alone an illicit affair) herself. For all we know, she could've been distressed for a close friend, or had information on a coworker that was difficult to keep to herself, or any other number of potential situations. The "married man affair" angle is one I feel we've pieced together from a limited set of data in order to pound pegs into holes, because firstly, it satisfies our very human need to fill in informational blanks. We as a species would rather have an explanation, no matter how ambivalent, when a solid "I don't know" would probably do just fine. Secondly, it appears to be the angle UM wanted to present, what with the reenacted conversations with her parents, and taking showers in the middle of night being tagged as "behavior common in women who have been sexually abused" (when other explanations could be just as easily substituted). I'm not saying that the "married man affair" angle couldn't be what happened. But I certainly don't think the evidence available to us is anywhere near conclusive, and for that reason, I'm setting that theory aside for now.

RE: the shooting. I have been to the site, although that's been about 6-7 years ago, and I know at least one poster here lives near it. I took photographs the day I was there, and all of them are posted in another thread on this board. The thing that most profoundly struck me the day I visited was the incline from the location underneath the I-40 bridge to the location Rhonda's vehicle was found (which is roughly marked by a cross on the left side of the road). It seems it would've been a foolish place to select for firing on the vehicle that one knows is going to exit the interstate and turn north, up the hill, onto the road, with the intent of killing the vehicle's driver. One would do far better, in theory, to choose a spot in the brush alongside Mineral Springs Mountain Rd, or perhaps even from atop the I-40 bridge. We know, however, that the round was fired from behind and traveled through the trunk of Rhonda's car, through her seat, and out her body. In conjunction with the unnecessary difficulty the shooting location poses, the keen understanding of ballistics and firearms one would likely have to possess in order to point and fire that weapon at the trunk of a moving vehicle confident that the driver would be killed seems to make for an unlikely scenario. I would be more apt to think someone--hired or not--would have been trying to scare her in such a situation as opposed to attempting to murder her.

But I don't know the motive behind why someone fired on Rhonda's vehicle. I know I don't have enough information to surmise it was a murder conspiracy, and that I do have evidence that may suggest the intent of the shooter wasn't to kill the driver.



A responsible and/or trained individual would likely concur. However, not every shooter is responsible, and not every shooter is trained. Although the shooter is ultimately accountable for what happened to Rhonda, there is a great difference between someone ambushing a person with a definite intent to murder them and an idiot perhaps trying to spook drivers by taking potshots at tail lights or bumpers without any regard to the potential consequences.
Excellent post, Meg, and you've pretty much summed up how I feel. I was always pretty sure this was someone targeting her, perhaps the mysterious older man, but now I feel that it's possible, but we really don't know or have any evidence to support it.

I think the married man question really could have been for a friend. If she asked it as nonchalantly as she did in the segment, it could have been out of curiosity/to get her mother's input. Her nerves about driving alone could have been coincidental, too, and unrelated to being scared of anyone. Night showers ring a bell to me as something that could be stress-related. Maybe work stressed her out. It was her first job out of high school, if I'm not mistaken, and the adult world. I don't think she was necessarily being abused. The bottom line is, when a person disappears or is murdered, everything leading up to that point in time seems cryptic and mysterious when it might not be. These all could have been minute occurrences that had nothing to do with her death at all, they just seemed important after the fact.

I still believe this was probably an unintentional killing and the person who dragged her from the car was horrified to find that he'd killed her (if that was indeed the killer), but regardless, they need to pay for what they did. Hopefully someone fesses up.

that news story about random shots at trucks does make it seem that the Hinson murder was random. But two points- in this case the shooter was at an underpass not an overpass... maybe they started shooting at cars after they left the highway... second, the subsequent shootings happened after the murder. I'd have thought the murder would have scared off the shooter but maybe he got over it after several weeks...

Found this, FWIW. Not sure if it's been posted in another thread already:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19820120&id=wcwyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vyYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2832,3663097&hl=en

I'm not sure what to make of that. Unfortunately, there's been a handful of these weirdos shooting at random cars popping up in the last several years (with a couple of them in my area!). My general sense is that these weirdos keep firing until they get caught. That is to say, they're not "one and done" shooters. Considering at least one other car was hit with a bullet in the same time and area, I can't rule out that it may be the same person. But I think if it were, he would have kept doing it (and possibly, claiming more victims) until they were behind bars. These crazies don't stop until someone stops them.

No idea what to make of the rocks, that seems to be something else entirely.

here is a picture of the car at the crime scene after it had rolled off the opposite side of the road.

I have a feeling the married man question and the showers are tied to each other...it all adds up to something hinky in her life to me, like she was involved in something she felt very uncomfortable with and even "dirty" about, but I also work with psych pts for a living and stuff like this sticks out hugely to me. it could easily be something else too obviously.

Due to the location I don't buy the random act theory but I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to kill either, based on the angles and I personally agree with the tail light theory as a possibility...trying to scare her. Maybe she was going to tell the married man's wife at some point and this was known, so an attempt was made to scare her. Maybe she was already being threatened, maybe it was blackmail, who knows. The girl was hiding stuff. What better way to freak someone out of reporting something than by being shot at on a dark lonely road at night? When the person saw what happened to the car they went to see what happened and found her dead, which freaked them out.

All this fits into the illicit affair theory, either from the person or one(s) hired. It could explain why it is unsolved, as it would mean opening up a huge can of worms and admitting to what happened.

That is, to me, what fits best with the known circumstances.

But....it's also possible thAt the friend theory could play in here too...with the married man def not wanting the wife to find out and wanting her to stop trying to interfere or get the friend away from this person.

And it's possible the questioning and behavior and the shots aren't even related. But I honestly think that her behavior before and the shots are related somehow ...that there is no way it's random.

I've selected this case to be the fourth episode of my new "The Trail Went Cold" podcast and it will be released in three weeks.

During my research, one point which really stuck out of at me is that we had eyewitness sightings placing two separate distinct cars (a blue Chevy and a dark Trans-Am) near the murder scene. As far as I know, neither of those cars have ever been linked to anyone affiliated with Rhonda. Valdese and Hickory are both small towns, so if Rhonda personally knew anybody who owned a blue Chevy or a dark Trans Am, you'd think investigators would have found out pretty easily and this person would immediately shoot right to the top of the suspect list. That's why I'm inclined to think she was killed by a stranger.

I've selected this case to be the fourth episode of my new "The Trail Went Cold" podcast and it will be released in three weeks.

During my research, one point which really stuck out of at me is that we had eyewitness sightings placing two separate distinct cars (a blue Chevy and a dark Trans-Am) near the murder scene. As far as I know, neither of those cars have ever been linked to anyone affiliated with Rhonda. Valdese and Hickory are both small towns, so if Rhonda personally knew anybody who owned a blue Chevy or a dark Trans Am, you'd think investigators would have found out pretty easily and this person would immediately shoot right to the top of the suspect list. That's why I'm inclined to think she was killed by a stranger.

I look forward to it. I too think it was a stranger. There would have been easier ways to kill her or even shoot a warning shot than a hill where she'd only be visible for a few seconds before cresting the hill. They could have ambushed her at her house or the side street going to her house. There were also reports of random gunshots along the interstate in the weeks before. If it were someone she knew, I think the cops would have caught him.

I've selected this case to be the fourth episode of my new "The Trail Went Cold" podcast and it will be released in three weeks.

During my research, one point which really stuck out of at me is that we had eyewitness sightings placing two separate distinct cars (a blue Chevy and a dark Trans-Am) near the murder scene. As far as I know, neither of those cars have ever been linked to anyone affiliated with Rhonda. Valdese and Hickory are both small towns, so if Rhonda personally knew anybody who owned a blue Chevy or a dark Trans Am, you'd think investigators would have found out pretty easily and this person would immediately shoot right to the top of the suspect list. That's why I'm inclined to think she was killed by a stranger.

I think you should also do the case of the woman from Boston who went to a convention in Philadelphia, disappeared and was found dead in NC months later on the side of a mountain. Then UFO people claim the rest area she was found near is a "paranormal hotspot."

I look forward to it. I too think it was a stranger. There would have been easier ways to kill her or even shoot a warning shot than a hill where she'd only be visible for a few seconds before cresting the hill. They could have ambushed her at her house or the side street going to her house. There were also reports of random gunshots along the interstate in the weeks before. If it were someone she knew, I think the cops would have caught him.

You make it sound so easy, when in reality it would have been extremely difficult. Considering that Rhonda had a full-time job and there were at least two other people that lived in the house, the time frame which to kill her would have been extremely narrow, plus they would have had to track the movements and habits of everyone in the house. You also have to take into account the potentially huge amount of neighbors that could have easily saw someone and/or their distinctive car and the dogs that could have barked.

It's one of the major reasons I never thought Rae Ann Mossor was killed. Shooting someone near their house (in this case, in the middle of the street no less), with any number of potential witnesses who could have looked out their window in mere seconds would have been incredibly foolish and risky.

I've always believed that someone was hired to kill her. Yes, technically this person might have been a stranger, but would have been hired by someone that knew her and wanted her dead.

A shot like that is very likely to have been done by a sharpshooter and not some random person with little to no experience firing a "warning shot" at dark at a moving vehicle from some distance away.

I think Rhonda was definitely involved with a married man at her work and he killed her to shut her up or arranged it.

I think Rhonda was definitely involved with a married man at her work and he killed her to shut her up or arranged it.

I'm not so sure. Whoever did it seriously had the luckiest shot ever.

wanted to repost these posts of mine here.

I'm going to bring up a lot of things that haven't been discussed before:

I always believed that the married man she was seeing was one of the company higher-ups. Probably a President or manager, possibly even her own supervisor. This person would not have wanted the affair to be exposed as not only would it threaten his marriage, but also his future with the company considering there would be a conflict of interest there. I think he wanted her out of the picture.

I believe both of the cars spotted that night were higher-end cars, at least the Trans-Am was. Probably something a....president of a company or successful businessman would drive.

What I'm getting at is, while it's not impossible that there could have been some psycho shooting at random cars, I would think this person would be driving a car in the medium to lower price range. I really can't envision a person driving a Trans Am shooting at cars.

How many cases have you heard of people riding in limos, or driving BMW's, Mercedes-Benz shooting at cars? None that I know of.

Ergo, this was not some local yokel driving an old, beat-up pick up truck.

A lot of people have suggested that this was a hunting accident and that a stray bullet caused Rhonda's death. I'm not a hunter, but I'm relatively certain there's not a whole lot of hunting going on at night right next to the interstate. The only type of hunting I know goes on at night is "spolighting" so even if the scenario is true, the person didn't have the best of intentions that night to begin with.

An argument could be made that Rhonda asking her mother if it was o.k. to go with a married man doesn't necessarily tie in to this case. But her asking her father to accompany her for trips into town, that is...just not normal. At that age, teenagers value their independence and ability to have their own car, go where they want, do what they want, when they want. Under normal circumstances, a 19 year old is not going to ask their father to accompany them on mundane, routine trips to run errands (and wait for him when he is available). When you tie all of this together with the other things (the middle-of-the-night showers, that something appeared to be bothering her), I strongly feel she was legitimately afraid for her life, and a death by random act of violence would have to be a remarkable coincidence.

The issue of the timing and location also nags at me. There was a short distance between the location where Rhonda turned off the interstate onto Mineral Springs Rd, and the location of her destination (her house). I believe it was about a mile. For her to encounter a random act of violence in this narrow timeframe just seems too great of odds.

There's also the issue of the fact she was shot almost immediately after turning off the exit ramp. Rhonda's house is about a mile away. It definitely seems to me the shooter knew he had to shoot her then as if he misses, or only slightly injures her, he runs the risk that she can make it home and quickly identify the person, their car, etc.

I have always believed that the person seen by Rhonda's side that night was involved. I think this person was checking to make sure "the job was finished." Again, the shooter could not conclusively tell from his vantage point if Rhonda was dead, if he just injured her, or what. For him, going up to her was to ensure she was deceased. Because otherwise, the possibility would exist once again that Rhonda was just injured and could drive to her house nearby and call the police.

It's also important to mention the timing of this. Judy said it was unheard of for Rhonda to be out that late, and the Christmas party was largely the reason she was out that late. A person planning this attack almost certainly would not have gotten away with doing this during the daytime. The fact that this happened on the one night Rhonda stayed out late speaks to me this was preplanned. The killer knew he had to act on *this* night, because the opportunity might not have arose again, at least not in the then foreseeable future.

A killer planning on killing Rhonda with the shot that killed her is not as unlikely as it would seem. Rhonda had just turned off the interstate, so her car wasn't going that fast to begin with. If the psychic vision that she had stopped for someone and was in the process of getting away from this person is true, that reinforces my belief. The killer could have also theoretically planned on shooting her tires or something else that would disable the car, then finish her off.

Somebody planned on killing her that night. Case closed. This person deserves the strictest punishment provided by the law, and I'm uncomfortable with the constant suggestions of accident as that insinuates this person deserves a lighter sentence and was not planning on what happened. Someone killed her in what was cold-blooded murder. Period.

As for who this person is, I think the boyfriend's father: the minister/hunter who was mentioned in some older posts on this forum, is a viable suspect and everything would seemingly tie together with him being responsible. The boyfriend doesn't want her to go out that night, perhaps knowing or sensing what was in store for her. He's devoted to or scared enough of his father that he doesn't tell (or worried about what it would do to his reputation, accusing an "upstanding" citizen of something so heinous). He would know what time the party ended.

Wow that is one very long post! I think it was the married man also.

Here's the thing: If you are the guy that was spotted by Rhonda's dead body that night, and you are innocent, and there's a trucker coming by...wouldn't you flag him down? Have him radio the police? Innocent people have nothing to hide, so why wasn't this done? I still think it's because the guy seen by her side that night participated in her murder and was hoping the trucker would not realize what was going on and vanish on the road.

If he's innocent, it's possible he fled because he didn't want to be accused, but still, somebody caught him with a dead girl in his arms. It certainly doesn't look good.

Here's the thing: If you are the guy that was spotted by Rhonda's dead body that night, and you are innocent, and there's a trucker coming by...wouldn't you flag him down? Have him radio the police? Innocent people have nothing to hide, so why wasn't this done? I still think it's because the guy seen by her side that night participated in her murder and was hoping the trucker would not realize what was going on and vanish on the road.

If he's innocent, it's possible he fled because he didn't want to be accused, but still, somebody caught him with a dead girl in his arms. It certainly doesn't look good.
In regards to your first comment do you mean the guy that was spotted leaning over the girl in the car and the passer by thought they were a drunk couple? If yes then i also agree if he is innocent then why not ask a passer by for help to go to a payphone or drive to police etc.

Here's the thing: If you are the guy that was spotted by Rhonda's dead body that night, and you are innocent, and there's a trucker coming by...wouldn't you flag him down? Have him radio the police? Innocent people have nothing to hide, so why wasn't this done? I still think it's because the guy seen by her side that night participated in her murder and was hoping the trucker would not realize what was going on and vanish on the road.

If he's innocent, it's possible he fled because he didn't want to be accused, but still, somebody caught him with a dead girl in his arms. It certainly doesn't look good.
Agreed. That is someone's first instinct when they see someone who is hurt or in need of assistance, they would look around for help or either call the police. There is no doubt that this guy is involved in her murder somehow.

I keep coming back to the fact that she was laid out next to her car. It seems that someone involved with the shooting tried to revive her, or at least see if she was still alive. If the guy was trying to see if he had successfully killed her, he wouldn't have had to lay her out on the road.

This to me means it was definitely either an accident, or an attempt to scare her gone wrong. Maybe they were trying to shoot her tire out?

I keep coming back to the fact that she was laid out next to her car. It seems that someone involved with the shooting tried to revive her, or at least see if she was still alive. If the guy was trying to see if he had successfully killed her, he wouldn't have had to lay her out on the road.

This to me means it was definitely either an accident, or an attempt to scare her gone wrong. Maybe they were trying to shoot her tire out?

I concur.

I keep coming back to the fact that she was laid out next to her car. It seems that someone involved with the shooting tried to revive her, or at least see if she was still alive. If the guy was trying to see if he had successfully killed her, he wouldn't have had to lay her out on the road.

This to me means it was definitely either an accident, or an attempt to scare her gone wrong. Maybe they were trying to shoot her tire out?

I agree with this. I think whoever the killer was, realized something went horribly wrong when the car swerved and crashed. I believe the killer tried to help revive her until he/she figured it was useless.

It seems that someone involved with the shooting tried to revive her, or at least see if she was still alive.

Why would they go to the trouble of shooting her and then try to revive her? And why didn't they try to get help, especially since the trucker was in a capacity to help?

If the guy was trying to see if he had successfully killed her, he wouldn't have had to lay her out on the road.

An innocent passerby also would have no need to pull her to the side of the road. Why not just leave her in the vehicle?

This to me means it was definitely either an accident, or an attempt to scare her gone wrong. Maybe they were trying to shoot her tire out?

It's definitely a pre-planned murder.

I agree with this. I think whoever the killer was, realized something went horribly wrong when the car swerved and crashed. I believe the killer tried to help revive her until he/she figured it was useless.

if this person is out shooting at cars, I doubt they had the best intentions to begin with.

if this person is out shooting at cars, I doubt they had the best intentions to begin with.

No argument on that point. I just don't think there was any real reason to pull her out of the car if they were simply trying to kill her.

No argument on that point. I just don't think there was any real reason to pull her out of the car if they were simply trying to kill her.

That's also my dilemma.

I still maintain she was killed by some random person shooting a gun for kicks.

If the person had the intent to kill her, there was no need to pull her out of the car. I submit the person that pulled her out was, in fact, a passerby that wanted to render aid. Upon seeing that she was dead, they took off. Whether this was out of fear of possibly being accused of causing her death or if the person was driving while intoxicated, we'll never know. I just don't think the person who pulled her out killed her.

Why would they go to the trouble of shooting her and then try to revive her?

Because, as I stated, I believe it was an accident that she was killed.

And why didn't they try to get help, especially since the trucker was in a capacity to help?

The perpetrator likely felt that as she was apparently dead, trying to get help would result only in their being held accountable for the murder.

An innocent passerby also would have no need to pull her to the side of the road. Why not just leave her in the vehicle?

As I already stated, I believe that the shooter (not an innocent passerby) was trying to see if she could be revived, because they did not intend to kill her.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. As many as there are so many theories, i definitely think Rhonda was killed by a married man she was involved with at work or she knew about a married man at her work and saw things she wasn't supposed too. I really don't go with the theory that someone was out shooting that night..