|State Representative Phil Hinkle|
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. Queerty.com 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.