Kimberly Baldwin
Something
that I noticed when I was doing this case was how often it seems that
women, especially if they were the perpetrator of a crime against a
spouse, seemingly no longer carry the man's surname. I do not just
mean when they are simply telling the story in the media but I would
assume that names used within the prison system are their legal names
and I almost always find them under those names. For example,
Baldwin is apparently Kimberly's maiden name. It also does not
appear that she and Frank Parker were divorced for very long before
his murder in February of 2002. Nor is Baldwin the surname of
Kimberly's previous ex-husband. Of course women can always legally
take back their married name after a divorce but I always believed
that to be less common, especially when there were children involved
than it seems to be. In my own previous divorce I had it granted in
which I could hyphenate my name with my maiden name and married name.
While it was granted by the judge I never changed things like my
social security card to reflect that. And while this may seem a
mundane issue, and in the realm of things it really is, it just
happens to be how my mind works and had me curious.
On
February 16, 2002 Frank Parker was found dead in his Valparaiso
Indiana home. He had been shot in the head and then apparently
repeatedly stabbed. Thankfully his two young children, who were six
and eight at the time were not present. He had just dropped them off
for supervised visitation with their mother, Kimberly Baldwin.
Just
exactly when Kimberly and Frank had divorced is not completely clear
but there had been a custody battle over the children. Kimberly
would allege that Frank had been abusive not just to her, but had
molested their young daughter, the younger of their two children. It
seems obvious that not only were the charges unfounded but the judge
in the case was concerned enough to give Frank custody and only allow
her supervised visitation. To be fair here I should point out that
the supervised visitation may have been ordered simply because the
courts did not believe the molestation allegations and were
attempting to prevent Kimberly from continuing to attempt to pursue
that angle by in essence brainwashing the children. What I can say
from someone who has lived all over the state of Indiana, studied
parenting laws and have dealt with several different family courts
the fact that Frank received full custody of the children, especially
in 2002, likely means there was way more going on then I could find
in my research. Indiana is very much a pro-mom state. In fact when
I was in law school around 2005 and was taking my family law course
the professor mentioned a law that had she claimed had long been
abolished in states in which the child had to be generally between
the ages of three and five before the non-custodial parent, almost
always the father, especially in this state could not have overnight
visitation. This type of law had a name and I have used to know it
but could not think of it and an attempt to search for the name was
unproductive. At any rate at the time the professor was stating this
to the class I let her know that Indiana still had it in their
“Parenting Guidelines” and that many lawyers in the state often
told clients that they were absolutely to adhere to these guidelines
rather than coming to their own decisions. I sent the professor a
copy of those guidelines and she seemed to be amazed. Now, in
fairness, as I said I attempted to find out what this was called and
I failed, and it does seem that Indiana has come out of the dark ages
as far as that is concerned. However, I have to wonder if that has
been removed less because it was unfair to mainly fathers since they
were rarely granted primary custody of children, or because they are
being granted that more and mothers are now more often the
non-custodial parents. The point is that the state of Indiana in
2002 still had this law on the books so for Frank Parker to get
primary custody of his children was a big deal.
Investigators
were made aware very quickly that they needed to look into Kimberly
Baldwin when Frank Parker was found dead. My details were sketchy
but the evidence led them to arrest not just Kimberly but also a man
named Findley Paul Thompson. They would come to believe that
Kimberly and Findley had met through a church group and that she had
hired him to kill Frank Parker. Allegedly she was to pay him
$10,000. They would also say that Kimberly had provided the weapon
that was used and even drove Findley to Frank's home on that February
day. They found plenty of people who had heard her make derogatory
remarks about her ex husband and saying things such as wanting him
dead.
Now,
as I said some of the details were rather sketchy on how they came to
these conclusions but I can only assume that Kimberly did not show up
for her supervised visitation with her children. I say this because
she obviously could not be in two places at once and it appears that
the prosecutors would still claim that she had driven Findley to the
home. I also believe this means that she never went because I cannot
see the media missing the opportunity to tell a sensational tid bit
about a woman who drove a hit man to kill the father of her children
and then she went to see them. I have been left with questions as
to whether she called and informed anyone she would not be there and
if she did what excuse she gave. I am also curious as to if she
regularly missed visits with the children.
It
seems that at least when it came to Findley Thompson the prosecution
had planned to seek the death penalty. Or at least that is what they
told him. Findley would end up making a deal with prosecutors to
tell his story and testify against Kimberly to avoid just such a
sentence.
In
December of 2004 Kimberly would go on trial, but Frank Parker's
family would allege so did he. The defense would argue that Findley
had an extensive criminal record, which is true, and that his
confession, or at least the part that involved Kimberly was
fabricated in order for him to avoid the death penalty. They did not
argue that Findley had murdered Frank but would allege that he did so
all on his own, without help from Kimberly, without being paid and
without apparently any known motive to do so.
Kimberly
had a son who at the time of her trial was twenty-one years old. His
name was Anthony Hixson. He would testify that he had given her the
gun that was used in the murder because he was concerned for her
safety. It had been said that she had expressed concern that Frank
would come and abuse her. Anthony testified that he had never seen
Frank hit his mother but he had seen him express his “temper.”
Just what that entailed or meant is unknown, at least to me. Another
thing that is not clear is how much Anthony saw of his mother. Her
first husband would tell the media that she had been ordered to pay
him $50 a week in child support in June of 1988 and had paid nothing.
But here again was an example of a father getting custody of a
child. I assume, but cannot say for sure, that they also lived in
Indiana.
Kimberly's
home had been searched and prosecutors claimed that metal shavings
found were a result of Findley sawing off the barrel and stock of the
gun before using it in the murder. Prosecutors believed this was all
in retaliation for her losing custody and the prospect of being
ordered to pay child support.
In
their characterization of Frank the defense would allege that he had
beaten Kimberly often to the point in which she had broken bones.
There was apparently nothing to back these claims up. My research
indicated that Kimberly had a prior criminal record but she claimed
that someone had stolen her identity. The prosecution dismissed both
of these claims. What I can say is that, at least in Indiana, it
does not appear that she had any prior prison stays. That does not
mean that she had never been arrested, charged, or even convicted.
Any sentence under a year can be spent at the county jail which will
not show up on the Indiana Department of Corrections. I can only
assume that she did have prior issues with the law. I also suspect
it was likely those prior issues that had resulted in her not having
custody of any of her children.
On
December 17, 2004 Kimberly was convicted of first degree murder,
conspiracy to commit murder and aiding and abetting. It does not
appear that the prosecutor had asked for the death penalty. Going
into sentencing it was assumed that the maximum she could receive was
eighty-five years. However, the judge sentenced her to 115 years.
At her sentencing her attorney said “the entire issue of sentencing
in Indiana is up for review” and they did not expect this sentence
to stick. They were right.
In
2006 Kimberly's sentencing was overturned, not because the judge had
technically done anything wrong at the time of the sentencing but
because the United States Supreme Court had issued new rules and her
case was affected. It was said that the sentence was overturned
because the judge had “decided enhanced portion of the term without
the required participation of a jury.” So basically what it was now
saying was that she could have gotten the 115 years if in fact the
jury had thought she deserved it but the judge alone could not decide
that.
In
2008 the issue was headed to court but it seems initially the
prosecutors were trying to decide if they wanted to have a jury
present to rehear the evidence and let them decide. The conviction
had still stood so it was not as if she was going to get out of jail.
But it seems that the defense did not like the idea of letting a new
jury come in and decide her sentence. Despite all of her claims of
innocence she was now admitting her involvement, including paying (or
at least promising to pay) Findley the $10,000 as he had stated. The
prosecutors were pushing for the original maximum on the case of
eighty-five years while the defense was hoping for less. On February
6, 2008 Kimberly was resentenced to the eighty-five years. In
November of 2008 the courts upheld her sentence of fifty-five years
for murder and thirty years for conspiracy to commit murder, to be
served consecutively. According to the Indiana Department of
Corrections website the earliest she is eligible for parole is August
of 2040. Her children with Frank Parker were raised by his brother
in Maryland.
Apparently
after he testified at Kimberly's trial Findley was sentenced per his
plea deal. He too was given an eighty-five year sentence. However,
just what happened to him is a mystery. The Indiana Department of
Corrections website states that he is deceased. It also listed his
earliest possible release date from these charges as being February
13, 2017. I attempted to do a search to see when he died but I was
not successful. I can only assume that he died while behind bars,
hence I believe under “facility/location” it would have said
“discharged” or given a facility but instead says “deceased.”
Whether the date given is his actual death date, I cannot say but it
is possible considering it is unlikely he would have only served
thirteen years of an eighty-five year sentence. I wrongly believed
that having the unusual name of Findley would help narrow my search
and find an answer. Maybe one of you know.
After
the trial Frank Parker's family felt in important that they speak to
the media and clear his name. They stated that Frank was a loving
father and man in general. They also said that the claims that
Kimberly made at her trial were some of the same claims she had made
in their divorce hearing and were proven to be untrue. At the time
they stated that his daughter, who Kimberly alleged was sexually
molested by Frank, went to bed every night crying and holding her
dad's picture. They believe that alone disproves her claims.
Started to read, but the font made it difficult.
ReplyDeleteI was the prosecutor of this case and stumbled upon your blog today. This case was already the subject of an episode of "Fatal Vows" and is going to be the subject of another "true crime" show to be produced this fall. Your analysis of the case is pretty "spot on". One of the additional compelling facts for the jury was the testimony of the woman Kim Baldwin confessed to in Porter County Jail. Baldwin, after admitting the details of the murder, told her that since she was a "soccer mom" no jury would convict her. Further, when the "Movie of the Week" was done about her acquittal, Meg Ryan would play her. Kim was the most narcissistic, sociopathic female I prosecuted in 30 years. Paul Thompson confessed because he believed the police were following him 24/7, and he couldn't hold up to the pressure. He believed this because one of the detectives who had previously interviewed him in connection with the murder coincidentally was at a Wendy's Paul was eating at some weeks later. Paul's girlfriend/Kim's "best friend" brought him to Valpo PD to confess to the police. Paul said that he would confess under two circumstances: that we not file the death penalty, and that we provide him a Kentucky Fried Chicken dinner, since he would only be eating prison food for the rest of his life. I was there, and responded, "Regular or Extra Crispy?". I also made sure he had a pudding cup. If you have any other questions, shoot me an email. bgensel@gmail.com.
ReplyDeleteSo what about the phone records, Mr. Gensel? Didn't Thompson testify that Baldwin called him up at his nephew's trailer in Portage on that fine Saturday morning to say she would come pick him up? You all subpoenaed the phone records for both Baldwin and the nephew. If that call happened, why weren't the phone records showing it happened introduced at the trial?
Delete-Just Curious
I was also interviewed about this murder! In fact me, my mom and sisters were! Paul actually came to our house right after he murdered the man! There are many details that are left out in this article.
ReplyDelete