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.