Greensboro’s most notorious couple

You’ve just got to wonder if any of this is connected to any of this.

My guess is there is at least a connection between how the two-in-the-news Hinsons don’t know, or perhaps simply don’t care, about right from wrong.  If just Bledsoe’s account of the Lieutenant’s penchant for carousing with prostitutes is borne out, and any part of the charges surrounding his ex-wife’s crimes are proved, their moral characters are way below what I would deem befitting their role as parents.

My heart goes out to their children, one of whom I know.

This entry was posted in Greensboro Politics, Life in General. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

11 Comments

  1. jaycee
    Posted March 6, 2007 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    Thanks for at least broaching this subject, no one else seems to have noticed or cared. The N&R is barren of commentary about the Hinson’s.
    Since the N&R hung it’s hat on the anti-white side of the Wray story I wonder if they’re now a big chagrined that one of the linchpins in that story has possibly committed some serious felonies.
    Is this the Greensboro version of the “Jim and Tammy Faye” or “Bill and Hillary” story? Two otherwise reputable citizens who’re breaking the law right and left behind the public spotlight?

  2. dhoggard
    Posted March 6, 2007 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    I checked the police line-up photo – no signs of runny masacara were noted.

    My wife had an interesting comment after reading today’s N&R story. She first noted that the article mentioned that Beverly Hinson’s name came up later in the investigation (after the initial search warrant) and only then because she was the teller who cashed a $145,000 check, “…knowing the account from which the money was drawn lacked the funds.”.

    Jinni said, “I don’t know how many times tellers that know me at (our bank) have done that same thing for me. They knew it (the funds) would be there by the time it hit the other bank.”

    The question is, of course, did Hinson do this repeatedly and did people lose money because of it? (No one ever had in our case). Also, as I pointed out to Jinni – I know for a fact that we have NEVER engaged transactions that involved anywhere near $145k. She retorted, “…maybe the cutomer was worth millions – it is all relative…”

    Her cautions about the charges are noted. She alway has had this intuitive thing going on, I must say.

  3. Mick
    Posted March 6, 2007 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps the good ol duck analogy is more in order this time around. Quack.

    Mick

  4. Beau Jackson
    Posted March 6, 2007 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    dhoggard……………………
    I don’t know any bank that will accepted (cash) a check (especially for 145K) without the person cashing the check having sufficient funds in the account should the check be NSF! I’ve banked with the same bank for years and have a respectible account, nevertheless they always pull up and check the status of my balance before they will cash the check. Something isssss rotten in Denmark here……………

  5. jaycee
    Posted March 6, 2007 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Based on my experience as a fraud investigator I feel that were there not sufficient evidence, especially in light of the explosive issue involving Wray and Hinson, charges would not have been brought. As in nearly every criminal investigation I’m sure the investigators have much more evidence than has hit the papers so far. Financial investigations are usually very involved and are not easily condensed for a newspaper article. I suspect that close oversight from the DA’s office and some extremely focused scrutiny went into the decision to bring charges against Ms. Hinson.

  6. Eric J.S. Townsend
    Posted March 6, 2007 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Beau: You’re correct that most banks will not give immediate access to funds when a check that large is presented for deposit/cashing. That’s where the check certification comes into play. A teller who certifies a check is telling another bank, in essence, “Don’t worry. I’ve confirmed there are funds to cover this. You don’t have to wait a few days for this to clear before you make the cash available to the person who has brought it to you.” Police accuse Beverly Hinson of KNOWING the funds did not exist yet certifying the Wachovia check anyway. They have not released a possible motive for why she may have done this. Which brings me to…

    Jaycee: You’re also correct. Criminal investigators in North Carolina (and with the federal government) rarely release even half of what they know about a case. I’ve butt heads several times with police over information I believe the public should have but that investigators feel they should keep private. Can I see why they want to protect elements to their case? Sure. Often, though, I believe the public’s right to know what its government is doing trumps that need for secrecy. It’s an endless debate that, in North Carolina, has mostly been won by law enforcement.

  7. Posted March 6, 2007 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    The most important thing is it was on the Troublemaker first. That is the only thing you people need to focus on.

  8. Posted March 6, 2007 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Ben, “you people?” “on your site first?”

    C’mon. Is this about news and uncovering public information or is it about you?

  9. Beau Jackson
    Posted March 6, 2007 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Ben………………………….
    Clearly the motive is money. Now that we have established the motive I don’t know of “any” bank that will allow you to “float” a check, and certainly not via a phone call! Seems Mrs. Hinson is in jail under a 100,000 dollar bond. A very high bond, therefore, I suspect the police feel there’s not only some smoke here but also a lot of fire.

  10. Beau Jackson
    Posted March 6, 2007 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Eric………………………
    Oops I gues I should have been responding to your retort and not Ben. Jaycee this to me is a seperate event far far away from the Wray/Hinson situation, certainly one has nothing to do with the other, and nice try to put a little sugar on this!

  11. Posted March 6, 2007 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    Sue,

    It is obviously about me…duh

2 Trackbacks

  1. [...] Troublemaker broke the story, while Hoggard providesbrief analysis. But by and large the local blogosphere has been quiet about Beverly Hinson’s arrest. Odd. [...]

  2. By gary on November 2, 2010 at 9:18 am

    gary…

    excelent post, keep it coming…