Rhonda Hinson was murdered 34 years ago today

[crystaldawn]

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...?intcmp=hplnws

[hostedbyrobertstack]

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.

[dynoguy88]

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.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by dynoguy88

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.

[hostedbyrobertstack]

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.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by hostedbyrobertstack

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.

[Victoria81]

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.

[mikewho]

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?

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by mikewho

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.

[mikewho]

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

[jjmcgr]

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.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by jjmcgr

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.

[jjmcgr]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by jjmcgr

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.

Originally Posted by jjmcgr

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

Please explain why you have come to this conclusion.

Originally Posted by jjmcgr

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.

Originally Posted by jjmcgr

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.

[crystaldawn]

Originally Posted by jjmcgr

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.