When I first heard this morning that Kenneth Hinson was acquitted of kidnapping, rape and attempted murder charges, I was shocked.
This was the so-called South Carolina "dungeon" rapist—he allegedly kidnapped two teenaged girls who were sleeping together in one bed, took them one at a time to a secret "bunker", really a big hole in the ground covered by a concrete slab, tied them up and raped them over the course of several days.
He left them to die (according to prosecutors) but the girls escaped, trekked through the woods and managed to contact 911.
Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Two traumatized victims, wrists still swollen from being tied up, Hinson with a record of raping a 12 year old girl in the past, drugs, guns, a secret dungeon….the stuff of movies and a slam dunk conviction, one would think.
Apparently, according to the foreman of the jury who acquitted Hinson, it wasn't quite that simple.
Here are a few of the discrepancies the jury found in the evidence presented as reported by The State:
~ Sleeping through a kidnapping. The girls testified they both were asleep in a small bed when Hinson entered their trailer and grabbed one of them, threatening to kill her if she made a noise. The other girl said she did not wake up until Hinson returned for her.
~ Not noticing the bunker. The girls testified they had not seen the chamber before Hinson raised the table hiding the entrance hole. Hinson said the girls knew of it, but his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s teenage son did not; the jurors thought everyone would have known about the bunker.
~ Drugs. One of the girls testified she bought “drugs” last summer from someone a defense witness said sold crack. “We all know people who smoke crack will do just about anything to smoke crack again,” Williams said.
~ Socks. A pair worn by one of the girls was dirty but had no wear marks, pine-needle fragments or tears some jurors expected to see from running about a mile through the woods after escaping the bunker.
~ Feet. The other girl said she ran barefoot. “But the pictures showed no scratches, no abrasions,” Lewis said.
~ Duct tape. The girls said one bit through the other’s tape binding her wrists. “We went over all of the duct tape and couldn’t find any chew marks,” Lewis said. And Hinson's fingerprints were not on the tape.
~ An odd comment. A logbook kept by the 911 dispatcher shows one of the girls noted in her 911 call that Hinson was on a sexual offender registry, which Williams said was an “odd” comment for someone who had just been raped.
But the bottom line was that the jury felt they couldn't believe any of the stories presented in court: neither the victims' or the defendant's.
“Every one of these little things adds up to reasonable doubt,” the jury foreman said. “We couldn’t believe him. We couldn’t believe them.
“We wanted to convict, but the evidence was just not there.”
Sigh…one of the lessons learned from my years in the ER is that everyone lies.
It's worrisome to think that these two girls could be lying, even more frightening to imagine the consequences if they were telling the truth and Hinson was mistakenly set free.
He is now in federal custody facing weapons charges and may still face life in prison if convicted. But I can't help but wonder what about those two girls?
What do you think? Would you have ruled differently if you had been on the jury?
4 comments:
Some of the things I've heard about the case made me wonder about the girls and their statements. It's a very sad situation because someone is lying.
Being in Canada, this trial hasn't had any media play that I've heard/noticed. In my experience with criminal trials (not that I'm an expert), the jury made a few errors: 1) the sock - showing wear but not pine needles sounds perfectly normal to me if you were running through the forest. For the other girl not to have cuts or abrasions, I've walked barefoot lots of times in "the woods" and nothing's happened to my feet.
2) knowing about the bunker - how would they be expected to know about that? Just because Hinson's girlfriend and her son knew about it...or did you mean that one of the girls and her boyfriend already knew about it?
3) Sleeping and not knowing the other was being kidnapped - perfectly possible. I'm going to blog about one of my rape investigations that deals with a similar situation. A knife at your throat is a wonderful subduer.
4) Buying crack? Did the prosecutor not dig into whether or not she was an addict and still using? He/she dropped the ball there...
5) The 911 call - people can say all kinds of things when they're freaked out. If she knew he was on a sex offender registry, then in saying that maybe she was trying to get help there quicker. 911 people can feel to be "slow" in asking their questions and sending help, when someone's in a crisis and terrified...think back to the 911 call Nicole Simpson made the night she was killed. The 911 operator sounded like a complete idiot.
Nowhere has the jury foreman mentioned their proof of rape. That seemed strange to me! If that's there, the state of their socks or feet doesn't really matter. Sounds like it's a good thing Hinson's up on weapons charges - which right there "proves" he's a violent man - so the justice system can have another go at him.
I hope those girls are getting some kind of counselling, even if they lied about parts of it, they'll still need it. If I'd been on the jury (which I never will be, having been a cop), I doubt I'd vote to acquit him!
Thanks for the comments, Sara and Laurie.
The defense was that this man had consensual sex with both girls--they did have his semen on one of their shirts.
Of course, in any woman past adolescence it can be impossible to "prove" rape simply via a physical exam, hence the he said/she said defense.
I think the jury felt like no one was telling the truth and how could they incarcerate a man for life based on what they felt like was evidence that didn't prove him guilty.
Hoping the feds keep him off the street and that these girls are getting the help they need!
A friend just sent me this link to read. I represented Kenneth Hinson. It has been over a year since the trial took place and I will tell you that your post is perhaps the most reasonably balanced I've read to date. Most that I've seen accept the unfortunate pre-trial press releases as being the irrefutable facts of the case and accordingly, express absolute outrage at the result. According to most, the blame lies with me, the prosecutor, the jury or the system itself. The problem was that the state was so confident in its case (as was the media) no one bothered to look at the girls' version of events with a critical eye. I am grateful that someone recognizes that in an imperfect world, truth is sometimes an elusive commodity. In this case the jury was told that they had to believe those facts, beyond a reasonable doubt. When they could not, I think the jurors accepted their only remaining option.
At any rate, thanks for being objective. I'll look forward to reading your book. RHoefer
Post a Comment