Sunday, August 21, 2011

Hinkle Accuser Claims Craig's List Ad Was Just a Joke; Conflicting Versions of Events Leads to Skepticism

State Representative Phil Hinkle
Previously on this blog, I noted that the 18 year old accuser, Kamyron Gibson, had changed his story from that reported in the Indianapolis Star when he spoke to Channel 13 Reporter Kevin Rader on July 12, 2011.  What I didn't realize is that he gave another contradictory story to Channel 13 Reporter David McAnally that appeared that day.

According to the version given the Indianapolis Star, State Representative Phil Hinkle answered an ad placed by Gibson on Craig's List and set up a sexual rendezvous with the 18 year old (who advertised himself as being 20) at the downtown JW Marriott.  Supposedly while talking in the hotel room, Hinkle revealed himself to be a state legislator, which caused Kameryn to freak out and run into the bathroom phoning his sister, Megan Gibson, to come pick him up.   Supposedly Hinkle tried to keep the boy from leaving, and somehow the sister ended up with a $100, Hinkle's blackberry and I-pad.  Supposedly  Megan was so bothered by the fact that Hinkle is a state representative who was soliciting sex, and had offered her $10,000 to remain silent about that fact, she went to the media.

Before getting to the Channel 13 stories, I have other questions.  How was Hinkle ever in a position to meet the sister?  Why didn't the Kameryn simply leave the hotel and meet her downstairs?  Supposedly
Hinkle confined the young man and wouldn't let him go.  Hinkle is a diminutive 64 year old man.  Kameryn is a 18 year man who is obviously in good shape.  And we're supposed to believe Hinkle confined Kameryn refusing to let him out of the hotel room?  Of course, Kameryn also knew Phil Hinkle's complete name.  Yet we're supposed to believe he didn't google Hinkle's name before the clandestine meeting, that the young man was completely surprised to learn for the first time at the meeting Hinkle is an elected official?

When interviewed by Channel 13's Kevin Rader, the story changes. This time it wasn't just the fact that Hinkle is an elected official that freaks out Kameryn causing him to run into the bathroom, it's also the fact that Hinkle is old.  Wait a second, didn't Hinkle pick up the young man and take him to the hotel.  So he didn't know he was "old" until they got up together int he hotel room?  Anyway, Gibson told Rader that because he was older and a state legislator he "wanted out of the deal."

The story changes again, when Channel 13 Dave McAnally talks to Kameryn.  He says the Craig's List ad was just a big joke between he and his sister and there was no intent to trade cash for sex.  Kameryn never mentioned that it was just a joke to the Star or Channel 13's Kevin Rader.

Give the confusing, apparently self-serving account by the Gibsons, and Kameryn's continuing to change the story during interviews, it's hard to believe any of their statements that aren't backed up by the emails.  Of course, with Hinkle the only feedback we have is that there was a "shakedown" going on.

Assuming the emails weren't manufactured, it would be hard to deny their was a sexual rendezvous set up in the hotel at which there may have been an exchange of money.  However, I do not think it credible that Kameryn, a young man obviously experienced with computers, would not have googled the name "Phil Hinkle" before the meeting.  I think he and his sister knew exactly who he was. 

If Kameryn were in the business of trading sex for money, does it make sense that he would have ran away because the client is too "old."  Again, I would emphasize that Hinkle picked him up for the meeting so he knew how old he was before he went to the hotel room.

As far as the first story, that Kameryn was bothered by the fact Hinkle is an elected official, and decided to call things off because of that, the reason for that would be that he didn't want to do anything that could one day end up on the front page of the papers.  Yet, Kameryn later gave two interviews to Channel 13 and now suggests his speaking out was because of his feelings on gay rights issues.  Again, that doesn't make sense.

Even some gay rights bloggers are dubious of the 18 year old's factual claims. had a story noting Kameryn's questionable version of events.

While there's nothing that excuses Phil Hinkle's decision to set up the I don't buy anything Kameryn and Megan Gibson are saying outside of the fact that a meeting took place.  I think they knew exactly who Hinkle is before the meeting.  I think it's also quite possible that they solicited the $10,000 from Hinkle and that they went public when Hinkle didn't come through with the money and to cover for the fact they could have been accused of a crime.

That issue came up on a previous post I had.  I've since found the statute that confirms it would be illegal to solicit Hinkle to pay $10,000 to not expose his sexual orientation and/or the rendezvous.  That is covered by the criminal intimidation statute, IC 35-45-2-1, which includes threats to expose someone to "hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule" to get them to do something against their will, such as pay $10,000.  That statute is only a class A misdemeanor.  There may be other statutes involved as well.


Downtown Indy said...

I find the whole 'found out he was a legislator' thing suspicious.

Hinkle thought it necessary to disclose the fact he's a legislator? I would think he'd do everything possible to keep that fact a secret.

Ditto for giving his complete name.

A prostitute that cares who gives them money and turns it down? Since when?

Bill said...

Paul, two things/Im not sure if this kid knows what ac state legislator is.Dont mean to be condesending,but really..

Second, there is no way that these two knew Hinkles name befor he picked him up. If HInkle did give him his real name, the Hinkle desrves what ever he gets for being so stupid

Paul K. Ogden said...


I couldn't agree more with all of your comments.


The email Phil Hinkle used was started "phinkle." The bottom of the website said, from "Phil's I-pad." I'm pretty sure he could have figured it out his name is "Phil Hinkle."

Septly said...

I am not quite sure why there is so much effort being made by your blog to defend Phil Hinkle.

At best, he comes across as a liar and hypocrite who committed the crime of solicitation. He made his bed, so to speak, and now he can lie in it.

I would be fine with prostitution (NOT human trafficking, but voluntary and safe consensual arrangements) being legalized, but for now it is a criminal act. IMPD regularly uses its resources to bust ordinary folks for solicitation and prostitution, and this incident involving Phil Hinkle should be investigated and treated accordingly. Also, we should all expect our elected officials to follow the law.

Moreover, if Phil Hinkle truly was subjected to a so-called "shaked down," then he is welcome to file a complaint with the IMPD, something that I do not believe he has done.

In addition, I go back to an earlier comment I posted, if Mr. Gibson is a blackmailer, he is a pretty stupid one. You blackmail someone by having leverage over them. Once he went to the press with his story, (A) he lost any leverage, and (B) he subjected himself to possible criminal prosecution, at the very least for prostitution. He may have received a bit of media attention, but he is not getting any money out of the situation. It would seem, he would just move on to an easier target, if Phile Hinkle supposedly would not pay the supposed $10,000 demanded.

Finally, why isn't IMPD investigating the matter. It would be very easy to sort this whole thing out. The JW Marriot has survelliance cameras. Phone and email records can be subpoened. My guess is they have been asked to just let this whole thing slide so the publicity can die down and Phile Hinkle can wait until he turns 65 before resigning so he can qualify for his state pension. Nice deal.

Paul K. Ogden said...


I don't know why I'm supposed to ignore the fact that the young man's story doesn't make much sense. That's not defending Hinkle. I have never, after all, defended what he is alleged to have done in terms of meeting him for a sexual rendezvous for cash. It's after that point the story turns bogus, which I have pointed out.

You also have to look at the alternative. Hinkle is one of the more independent Indy area Republicans. Why should I be thrilled about his being replaced by Kyle Walker and David Brooks? I would be foolish to want that.

As far as a criminal prosecution goes, you could charge either one with prosecution-related offenses, but that's not going to happen. I can't think of a single time prostitution has been charged when they're hasn't been a police officer doing a sting. I think an extortion-type charge is more likely, but that's not going to happen either because it's tough to say whether the $10K was offered or demanded.

The notion that this young man and his sister went to the media out of public concern that a right-wing, anti-gay politician was soliciting sex and had offered $10,000 to remain silent about it is about as believable as a $3 bill. Then you add in the fact that the man's story is constantly changing. I'm surprised you actually believe him.

Paul K. Ogden said...

I would add that your thinking, Septly, is probably what Hinkle was thinking. He didn't come through with the $10K thinking they'd just move on to someone else...and he guessed wrong. Quite possibly they were worried about getting charged...maybe Hinkle suggested he would turn them in for the shakedown. The first one that seeks out the media can claim innocense a lot easier than the person who doesn't speak up.

Septly said...

Paul, I never thought Mr. Gibson was a saint, but I do think most crooks are usually smart enough to keep a low-profile and stay out of the papers. Perhaps, he went to the media because he enjoyed getting attention, rather than out of a sense of civic duty. That said, I never thought it was impossible that had attempted some sort of shake-down of Phil Hinkle. But, I do think this matter should be investigated and all parties held accountable, as appropriate.

The allegations made by both sides in this incident are quite serious and go far beyond a simple claim of an exchange of sex for money. Yes, the police may not want to get involved with a case of alleged prostitution, but I would think they would want to investigate allegations of sexual battery (made by Mr. Gibson against Mr. Hinkle) and extortion (made by Mr. Hinkle against Mr. Gibson).

As I mentioned before, the hotel is full of surveillance cameras that would have footage of a meeting occurring, when and how the Mr. Gibson's sister arrived, when and how Mr. Gibson left and whether his demeanor was consistent with an assault victim. There would also be footage of Mr. Hinkle making phone calls at various times, and it would help to either support or discredit his story of being "shaken down."

Moreover, there are phone and email records which can be subpoenaed. The phone records would be especially interesting, as if Mr. Hinkle's family is shown to have been calling Mr. Gibson, as he claims, it would tend to support his claim that he was offered hush money, rather than that he demanded it. If however, Mr. Gibson is shown to be calling Mr. Hinkle multiple times after the hotel encounter, it would tend to support Mr. Hinkle's claim that he was a victim of a blackmail attempt.

My opinion is that the police are being discouraged from investigating this incident, and I am sure it is not because Mr. Gibson has any sway with IMPD. I think the prostitution arrangement, though unsavory, is really the least serious allegation that has been made, and the police should be investigating the full incident, and I think we all have a right to know why they apparently are not. n