Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/23/2007 11:01:34 AM EDT
Wow, he got off.

He said the sex was consensual and the jury believed him.



www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/23/dungeon.trial.ap/index.html


DARLINGTON, South Carolina (AP) -- A jury has acquitted a convicted sex offender of charges he raped two teen girls in an underground bunker.

The jury found Kenneth Glenn Hinson, 48, not guilty of kidnapping, sex crimes and assault with intent to kill.

Hinson wiped his eyes and mouth and appeared to cry after the jury read its verdict, which followed about four hours of deliberations over two days. (Watch relatives of his accusers break into tears )

"I think the verdict says it all," he said as he was escorted from the courtroom.

Authorities had charged that Hinson snatched the 17-year-old girls from their bedroom last year and dragged them one at a time to the underground room hidden beneath a tool shed, where he raped and bound them with duct tape. Prosecutors said Hinson expected the girls to die because the room had no air supply.

However, Hinson testified during the six-day trial that the girls had consensual sex with him. He said they made up the story so they would be able to take drugs from the underground room, which he used to store marijuana.

The two young women were not in the courtroom when Hinson was acquitted. Their mothers and other relatives wept. They declined to comment after the verdict.

If convicted, Hinson had faced a mandatory life sentence without parole under the state's two-strikes law because he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in 1991.

The underground room was about the length and width of a mid-sized car with a ceiling about 41/2 feet high. Hinson testified Sunday that he had built the room behind his trailer where he lived.

Defense attorney Rick Hoefer spent much of his nearly two-hour closing argument Sunday picking apart what he called inconsistencies in the teens' testimony, including how long it took them to call 911 after their alleged escape and whether they saw Hinson with a gun.

Prosecutors said any discrepancies in their stories might have been a result of the trauma the teens went through.

"We are shocked and stunned. We believed Mr. Hinson was guilty as charged. We still believe he is guilty as charged,' said Attorney General Henry McMaster, who helped prosecute the case.

Hinson remained in custody on a federal firearms charge because he allegedly had a gun when he was arrested. Convicted felons are not permitted to carry weapons.

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:02:40 AM EDT
I'm heading straight over to Myspace.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:03:50 AM EDT
Wow what a sick mother fucker, I hope someone takes care of him.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:06:28 AM EDT
Why didn't he get executed for raping the 12 year old in 1991?
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:12:51 AM EDT
pathetic.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:13:26 AM EDT
What. the fuck?

Seriously.

What the fuck!?
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:13:50 AM EDT
Wow that is horrible.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:16:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/23/2007 11:17:47 AM EDT by mjohn3006]
I do not know 1/20th of what I need to know about the case to comment on it. And I don't trust CNN to report on straight facts at all.

We bitch and complain at people making rash assumptions on guns because of a news story not posting enough information, or false or slanted information.

BUT! If actually convicted of raping a 12 year old in 1991 he should have had is balls removed at the very least back then.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:16:57 AM EDT
I hate to say it but if got off it was probably becuase what he said was true. Obviously the jury belived him over the girls. also, 17 Years old is "the age of consent" so it was not "statutory rape" either. Need more info on the details. Ever since i saw that movie about the McMartin child molestation case ive always been careful to judge people even in these cases.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:27:17 AM EDT
I don’t know any details about this case, but I always find myself skeptical when the victims don't seek help ASAP.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:27:53 AM EDT
Fricking crazy.

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:29:45 AM EDT
He previously raped a 12 year old child?

Why was he even out of prison?
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:30:37 AM EDT
He needs an appointment with Detective Hartigan...
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:47:30 AM EDT
firemission?.... Surely somebody out there would want to take out the trash...
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:50:21 AM EDT


Don't judge others.


Link Posted: 4/23/2007 11:53:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/23/2007 11:54:54 AM EDT by gopeterson]
I have been following the case for a while. I was shocked to hear that the defendant actually testified since that would likely have opened him up to impeachment based on his prior (sickening) conviction. It sounds like the 17 year old girls were not entirely credible. Perhaps he was innocent of these charges, but I still hope he burns in hell for what he did to that 12 year old.

ETA: Some states only allow impeachment of a conviction for a certain period of years. I wonder if the jury even heard about his prior conviction.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:08:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Don't judge others.





Oh, you can bet Bill O'Reilly will feature this on his show.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:10:52 PM EDT
"Star Chamber"
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:13:31 PM EDT
This trial wouldn't have happened if things were handled appropriately after his initial conviction... DRT.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:24:22 PM EDT
Shoot, Shovel, Shutup!!!!
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:26:30 PM EDT
i am sorry guys, i don't like to rush to conclusions either, but i simply don't believe a proven rapist piece of shit. In fact, he needs a bullet to the forehead. I don't care if he didn't do this, he still needs a bullet to the forehead.

Any 49 year old that will sleep with two 17 year olds deserves a severe beating at a minimum. He raped a 12 year old. I am more pissed about the fact that he is still breathing and even on the streets to be accused of this after raping a 12 year old.

Why is this man still on this planet?
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:34:26 PM EDT


Well since a jury found enough reasonable doubt that he is "innocent", are we allowed to ask if the 17 year old girls had big tits yet?

Or have we not reached the "humor" section to this yet?

Apology sent to all those easily offended.

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:38:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EternalVigilance:
i am sorry guys, i don't like to rush to conclusions either, but i simply don't believe a proven rapist piece of shit. In fact, he needs a bullet to the forehead. I don't care if he didn't do this, he still needs a bullet to the forehead.

Any 49 year old that will sleep with two 17 year olds deserves a severe beating at a minimum. He raped a 12 year old. I am more pissed about the fact that he is still breathing and even on the streets to be accused of this after raping a 12 year old.

Why is this man still on this planet?


I absolutely agree that he guy should have been put away for life BUT the statement in red above makes wonder how many 49 y/o guys here would say they'd hit it if the girls pictures were posted (w/o their ages listed).....

Brian
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:41:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silly_Look:

Well since a jury found enough reasonable doubt that he is "innocent", are we allowed to ask if the 17 year old girls had big tits yet?
Or have we not reached the "humor" section to this yet?

Apology sent to all those easily offended.



Pretty tasteless when referring to underage girls under any circumstances. But this is America and you are free to be as tastless as you like.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:41:55 PM EDT
The best defense to rape is that it was consensual, hands down. It can be very hard to prove otherwise.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:42:03 PM EDT
If something like that ever happened to somebody I'm close to then that man would not be breathing, no matter what the consequences. I hope somebody in their family is man enough to do what should be done. Unfortunately, most people these days just don't have it in them do what everybody knows should be done. Sad world we live in
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:42:22 PM EDT
HOW THE HELL WAS HE ACQUITTED?!

Jesus, that sick fuck needs .25 cents worth of lead in his skull. It's obvious that it wasn't consented since most people having consenting sex aren't locked in a FUCKING REAL-LIFE DUNGEON!

I can't fuckin' believe this...
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:45:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
Pretty tasteless when referring to underage girls under any circumstances.

FYI: Age of consent in a whole slew of states is 16.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:46:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EternalVigilance:
i am sorry guys, i don't like to rush to conclusions either, but i simply don't believe a proven rapist piece of shit. In fact, he needs a bullet to the forehead. I don't care if he didn't do this, he still needs a bullet to the forehead.

Any 49 year old that will sleep with two 17 year olds deserves a severe beating at a minimum. He raped a 12 year old. I am more pissed about the fact that he is still breathing and even on the streets to be accused of this after raping a 12 year old.

Why is this man still on this planet?


Agreed. Even if he didn't rape these two girls (which I think he did), he still deserves what's coming to him for what he did do to the 12-year-old girl.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:52:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
Pretty tasteless when referring to underage girls under any circumstances.

FYI: Age of consent in a whole slew of states is 16.


Yes, I'm aware of the arbitrary variations on the consent laws. I guess since the age of consent in some third-world countries is 12 then we should feel free to make comments about their anatomy as well.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:55:56 PM EDT
Why is he still breathing
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 12:58:35 PM EDT
he should be in a shallow grave.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:03:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

Originally Posted By Silly_Look:

Well since a jury found enough reasonable doubt that he is "innocent", are we allowed to ask if the 17 year old girls had big tits yet?
Or have we not reached the "humor" section to this yet?

Apology sent to all those easily offended.



Pretty tasteless when referring to underage girls under any circumstances. But this is America and you are free to be as tastless as you like.


Looks like they aren't underage, at least not in the state where this occured. Age of consent in South Carolina is apparently 16. I could be wrong, though

But the 12-year-old was definitely underage. Sick fucker.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:12:29 PM EDT
Someone should Carl Lee that motherfucker.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:13:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/23/2007 1:14:38 PM EDT by Echo_Hotel]

Originally Posted By EternalVigilance:

<Snip>

Any 49 year old that will sleep with two 17 year olds deserves a severe beating at a minimum.


The age of consent in many states is 16 or 17. I'd be interested in hearing why a "severe beating" is in order for a man who has sex with someone younger than him if it's legal and consensual. What is the difference between a 17 year old penis being stuck in someone and a 50 year old penis? At what exact point does one get a "severe beating"? Exactly how much of an age difference crosses the line from "no beating" to "severe beating" territory? You must have thought this out. Does a female teacher deserve a "severe beating" for screwing a vastly younger male student? Why or why not?

I don't think it's any of anyone's fucking business who other people sleep with unless a law is being broken.

ETA: I'm not talking about the sick fucker in the OP. I'm talking about the concept of "age difference."
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:18:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

Originally Posted By Silly_Look:

Well since a jury found enough reasonable doubt that he is "innocent", are we allowed to ask if the 17 year old girls had big tits yet?
Or have we not reached the "humor" section to this yet?

Apology sent to all those easily offended.



Pretty tasteless when referring to underage girls under any circumstances. But this is America and you are free to be as tastless as you like.


You are way too kind , I would say more but what I would say would get me booted.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:18:54 PM EDT
Well here he is:



Ya I am sure two 17 year olds were just dying to jump in the sack with him.

http://www.morningnewsonline.com/midatlantic/scp/local_news.apx.-content-articles-FMN-2007-04-17-0018.html


Wonder what his defense attorney will have to say the next time his client winds up in court?

(the 12 yr old should have been his permanent incarceration)

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:19:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silly_Look:

Well since a jury found enough reasonable doubt that he is "innocent", are we allowed to ask if the 17 year old girls had big tits yet?

Or have we not reached the "humor" section to this yet?

Apology sent to all those easily offended.



Reasonable doubt does not assume innocence. A jury either finds a) the prosecution every element BEYOND a reasonable doubt=Guilty, or b) the prosecution failed to prove each of the elements of the crime BEYOND a reasonable doubt= Not Guilty.

A not guilty verdict does not = innocence, nor does it indicate that the jury BELIEVED he was innocent.

The jury has an obligation to presume the defendant NOT GUILTY, and can only reach a Guilty verdict if the prosecution proves every element beyond that reasonable doubt.

Apparently, the prosecution failed to prove its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:22:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
Shoot, Shovel, Shutup!!!!


Oh shit! Now Mas Ayoob will be writing about you in his next magazine article!
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:28:30 PM EDT
If a jury believed him over the two 17 year old's, I'm thinking that the State's case sucked in a whole ginormous way.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:29:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By gopeterson:
Pretty tasteless when referring to underage girls under any circumstances.

FYI: Age of consent in a whole slew of states is 16.


Yes, I'm aware of the arbitrary variations on the consent laws.

Just bringing up the point that these girls were not "underaged" according to law. I was not making any value judgments either way. Christ, calm down.


Originally Posted By gopeterson:
I guess since the age of consent in some third-world countries is 12 then we should feel free to make comments about their anatomy as well.

Thanks for the hyperbole.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:30:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
...Apparently, the prosecution failed to prove its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.


Exactly. Just like OJ.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:31:08 PM EDT
Yeah, I can't believe we have a legal system where defendants might not be found guilty! I say we abolish this lily-livered, hand-wringing liberal process and just instantly torture to death anyone who's accused of a crime we especially don't approve of. After all, if they're accused, they're probably guilty, and if they aren't actually guilty of this particular crime, well, they've probably gotten away with other things. Right?
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:37:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By txinvestigator:

Originally Posted By Silly_Look:

Well since a jury found enough reasonable doubt that he is "innocent", are we allowed to ask if the 17 year old girls had big tits yet?

Or have we not reached the "humor" section to this yet?

Apology sent to all those easily offended.



Reasonable doubt does not assume innocence. A jury either finds a) the prosecution every element BEYOND a reasonable doubt=Guilty, or b) the prosecution failed to prove each of the elements of the crime BEYOND a reasonable doubt= Not Guilty.

A not guilty verdict does not = innocence, nor does it indicate that the jury BELIEVED he was innocent.

The jury has an obligation to presume the defendant NOT GUILTY, and can only reach a Guilty verdict if the prosecution proves every element beyond that reasonable doubt.

Apparently, the prosecution failed to prove its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.



++1

The guy sounds like a sick fucker who needs a bullet, but if they can't prove it, then they gotta let him go. I support that. You can't be locking people up when the evidence doesn't proof them guilty.

Hopefully if he is guilty, they will catch him later on something else.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:38:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
...Apparently, the prosecution failed to prove its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Exactly. Just like OJ.

Oh you mean there was a former Black Panther on this jury too?

Or maybe a known pedophile considering the charge in this particular case.

Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:50:24 PM EDT
Piece of shit child molester vs. two 17 year old drug addicts.

You can seriously say beyond any reasonable doubt based on the few lines you read on the internet that this guy deserves to die?

No wonder we get such a bad spin in the media, half of you are fucking nuts.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:55:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/23/2007 1:55:59 PM EDT by EternalVigilance]

Originally Posted By Echo_Hotel:

Originally Posted By EternalVigilance:

<Snip>

Any 49 year old that will sleep with two 17 year olds deserves a severe beating at a minimum.


The age of consent in many states is 16 or 17. I'd be interested in hearing why a "severe beating" is in order for a man who has sex with someone younger than him if it's legal and consensual. What is the difference between a 17 year old penis being stuck in someone and a 50 year old penis? At what exact point does one get a "severe beating"? Exactly how much of an age difference crosses the line from "no beating" to "severe beating" territory? You must have thought this out. Does a female teacher deserve a "severe beating" for screwing a vastly younger male student? Why or why not?

I don't think it's any of anyone's fucking business who other people sleep with unless a law is being broken.

ETA: I'm not talking about the sick fucker in the OP. I'm talking about the concept of "age difference."



cry me a river bleeding heart
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 1:56:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Anthony346:
Piece of shit child molester vs. two 17 year old drug addicts.

You can seriously say beyond any reasonable doubt based on the few lines you read on the internet that this guy deserves to die?

No wonder we get such a bad spin in the media, half of you are fucking nuts.


Sounds like there were several of you on the jury.

Of course, this alone would have convicted him, if I were on the jury:


• Hinson was convicted of raping a 12 year old girl in 1991


Wait, since you seemed to have missed it...

Hinson was convicted of raping a 12 year old girl in 1991


Guilty. Whatever the fuck it takes to put him behind bars (or in the chair).
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 2:01:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
I do not know 1/20th of what I need to know about the case to comment on it. And I don't trust CNN to report on straight facts at all.

We bitch and complain at people making rash assumptions on guns because of a news story not posting enough information, or false or slanted information.



As OJ showed America...it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 2:02:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kap_x:
The best defense to rape is that it was consensual, hands down. It can be very hard to prove otherwise.


And the second best is DNA evidence that proves you didn't do it. I read somewhere that DNA evidence clears 50% of people accused of rape. Excuse me when ask for a little more evidence every time a girl cries rape.
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 2:04:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/23/2007 2:05:11 PM EDT by SNorman]

Originally Posted By Merrell:
Well here he is:

media.mgnetwork.com/scp/images/fp_gfx/041807_hinson.jpg

Ya I am sure two 17 year olds were just dying to jump in the sack with him.

http://www.morningnewsonline.com/midatlantic/scp/local_news.apx.-content-articles-FMN-2007-04-17-0018.html




Lawrence: Chicks dig dudes with money
Peter: Not all chicks
Lawrence: Well, the kind of chicks that would double up on a guy like me do
Pater: Good point.

How many stoner 17 year old girls do you know? I've known of girls getting with some really nasty guys in the sack when drugs (or money) are involved.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top