Archive

2 Greensburg women headed to trial in child rape, videotape case | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

2 Greensburg women headed to trial in child rape, videotape case

180805gtrgbgabusesuspect
Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review
Corby Jo Kinzey, is brought into the office District Judge Chris Flanigan, in Greensburg, before her arraignment for alleged rape of a child, on Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2018.

A Greensburg woman testified Thursday that she watched “five seconds” of a video forwarded to her on social media of a woman engaged in a sex act with a young child and knew she had to report it to police.

Elizabeth Murphy, the witness, provided the video to city police on Aug. 14. Officers subsequently charged the woman allegedly in the video, Corby Jo Kinzey, 24, and Murphy’s son, Charles Jason Hunter, 32, both of Greensburg, with rape, rape of a child and multiple other criminal counts. Hunter’s girlfriend, Amanda Lynn Smith, 29, of Hempfield, is charged with a lesser count of disseminating a video of a sex act on a child.

Murphy testified during a preliminary hearing for Smith before District Judge Chris Flanigan. Smith has pleaded not guilty in the case.

Prior to Murphy’s hearing, Kinzey — who is being held without bond in the Westmoreland County Prison — waived her right to a hearing and will have her case go to trial.

Asked if he had offered a plea agreement to Kinzey, Assistant District Attorney James Lazar replied, “Absolutely not.”

At Smith’s hearing, her attorney John Hauser of the public defender’s office, entered a not guilty plea on her behalf.

Murphy testified under questioning from Lazar that Smith, who had been dating her son for several months, told her that she had obtained a video that Hunter reported he had deleted off his phone and wanted her opinion.

City Detective John Swank testified that Smith told him in an interview that Hunter had told Smith that it was an adult engaged in a sex act with Kinzey, who he used to date.

“I told (Smith) to send it to me,” Murphy said under questioning by Lazar.

Murphy said she immediately determined the video depicted “graphic sex act” between Kinzey and a “very young” child, who police later discovered was a 5-year-old boy.

“I watched five seconds … I went right to police with it,” Murphy said.

Under cross-examination, Hauser repeatedly asked Murphy why she wanted Smith to send her the video. Flanigan sustained an argument made by Lazar that the reason she viewed the video was irrelevant.

“Your honor the reason (Murphy) is on the witness stand testifying today is that Miss Murphy did the right thing and immediately called police, and the person sitting here charged did not,” Lazar said.

During his testimony, Swank said that, when investigators initially questioned Smith after police had already arrested Kinzey, Smith told them she had deleted the video off her cell phone and computer.

Flanigan ruled there was sufficient evidence for the case against Smith to proceed to trial.

Hunter’s preliminary hearing is scheduled Sept. 6 before Flanigan. Kinzey told investigators that she made the video and shared it on social media at the urging of Hunter, police allege.

Hunter is being held in the county jail without bond.

Smith was remanded to jail, where she has been held on $100,000 bond since her Aug. 15 arrest.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-850-2860, [email protected] or via Twitter @ppeirce_trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.