Monday, November 12, 2012

Statement Analysis of Charlie Rogers: Perpetrator of Lies

revealed herself

Charlie Rogers has spoken out...again.  In her latest statement, she reveals just how much contempt she has for her friends, supporters, police, hospital workers, first responders, lawyers and her family.  Original Analysis is here to acquaint yourself with her story.  This was published weeks before her arrest.  

Did she actually confess in her statement?  Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  See if you can find her inadvertent confession of guilt in her statement.   

Last summer, Charlie Rogers reported that three men broke into her home, tied her up, carved hate slogans into her flesh, spray painted her walls, and set the house on fire. 


She went on television to assert it as truthful.  


The nation responded with overwhelming support, raising money, holding vigils, protests, and even getting Charlie Rogers' tattoos. 


Statement Analysis concluded that she was deceptive. 


Three weeks later, she was arrested for filing a false report to federal agents.  


 She has spoken out again, via Facebook.   Here is her statement, and then it is repeated with Statement Analysis added in bold type.  


Please note that Kerry Dunn, professor from the same school, spent years in prison for a similar offense. 



"I do this for me. This is not an attempt to change anything. It is done against the advice of my attorney. I am likely going to jail for a crime committed against me. I feel that I have a responsibility to tell the truth. Due to the circumstances I am facing, this is the only way to do so.
On the night of July 22, 2012 I was attacked in my home by three masked men who bound and cut me. They cut derogatory slurs into my body and called me names. They then attempted to set my house on fire. I escaped into my backyard. I was able to get my feet unbound, kick down and fence and run naked to my neighbor’s house. She called the police. I talked to the dispatcher. Fire and rescue came. I was walked a block and a half barely covered and still bound and placed in the back of an ambulance.
I was taken to the hospital and examined. I was questioned by the police. At one point, a personal cell phone was used by a police officer to record my statement. I was told by an officer that crimes like this don’t happen in Nebraska. As I was being examined, I was asked what medications are I take. I take an anti-depressant and an anti-anxiety medication. I had been previously diagnosed with anxiety, depression and PTSD.
After the police and doctors were done at the hospital, the police placed the keys to my home on the counter in the hospital room and told to go home, that the windows of my house had been opened to air out the smell of gasoline. No police officer escorted me home. I had scrubs on that the hospital gave me and no shoes. A nurse had called a local shelter that had sent an advocate to come sit with me. She took me home.
So, I am left at my house alone. I got my dogs from my neighbor and went to a friend’s house. She graciously took me and my dogs in. In the aftermath of the ordeal, I asked my friend to go to my house to get some clothes for me, as I was still in the bloody scrubs I left the hospital in. She and a friend of hers went to get clothes for me. She took pictures of the inside of the house so that I could see the damage to the house. My door was completely broken down. The house was not at all secured. This was the house I was sent home to alone by the police after having been attacked. This friend posted pictures of some writing in my basement on Facebook. Her intentions, I am sure, were good. It, however, was a surprise to me that it had been posted. I did not ask her to do so, nor did I know it had been done until it was already done.
Also at this time, vigils began taking place across Nebraska and across the nation. They were beautiful expressions of love and support. I did not have any part in the organization of any of these events or of any fund raisers. I made no appearances at any of them. I was still reeling from what had happened.
Very early on, the idea of a hoax came into play. The police were issuing statements. The media was everywhere. I responded to no requests for interviews. I ended up doing one interview for an Omaha television station to try to squash the rumors of hoax, to express my gratitude for the vigils, but also to express that I was trying to heal and wished to be left alone.
Two days passed before I was contacted by the investigator of the case. Two days in which my house was left entirely open. People were in and out. My insurance people were in the house as were my friends who got my clothes. I know not who all was in there. Items were left on my doorstep. People were around. There is no way to know who was in and out of the house. A second canvasing was done of my property for evidence after these two days, as a teaching mechanism for students. There is no telling what evidence may have been lost or damaged during the time my house sat open.










Then it started to get bad. I had my first interview with the investigator. It was four hours long. I was again photographed, naked. I was interrogated. I felt very much like a suspect and not a victim. I gave permission for my computer to be looked at. A few days later, I gave permission for my phone to be examined.
I hired an attorney that was recommended by a friend of mine. She was hired with the idea of managing the fund raising money and the interview requests, as I was totally overwhelmed and had no idea how to deal with any of it. She was not a criminal defense attorney. I had no idea I needed one.
The interrogation of me continued over the course of the investigation with a final total time of somewhere between 12-16 hours. My immediate family members were interviewed. No one else was interviewed as a suspect. I was the number one suspect the whole time. I was never advised of this. I was never given my Miranda rights. I was never warned. I kept cooperating. I did not know that it was me they were after.
The investigation culminated in a meeting with my former attorney, me and the two officers working on the case. Another four hours. One where they told me I did it. I kept insisting that I did not. They called in a mental health professional. I was accused of having multiple personalities, black outs. I have none of these. They tried to put me in emergency protective custody, but could not. Instead, I was told by the mental health professional that she would be calling every hour on the hour. If I did not answer one of those calls, the police would be there to get me. 

Then I was arrested. Things went from bad to worse. The media was everywhere. I was placed in emergency protective custody immediately after my arrest. Not because I had made any threats of self -harm. It was because the police, my attorney, an acquaintance and an ex thought I might hurt myself after being arrested. That set of circumstances had never been seen before by the staff at the mental health facility.

Since the case remained open at the time of my arrest and remains open to this day, my attorney advised me to not talk about the case while I was in emergency protective custody. So this translated in the official police reports as me being uncooperative while I was there. That is not true.
I was released from emergency protective custody to a virtual storm of hate. The police chief had held a press conference. He released an alarming amount of information about my case. When asked why he had released so much more information than usual by a reporter, he responded by saying that he wanted the public to know a thorough investigation had been done. A thorough investigation, but during the first two thirds of his press conference he had my name wrong.
What really happens is this. I am perceived as guilty by my community. No trial needed. No questions asked. People took back donated monies. I was used by “causes” when it was convenient for them. I was left when an accusation was made. They wanted a poster child. Their intention was never to really help me. Hateful things were said about me in the media. The people who had been supportive the week before were gone. And I get to say nothing. I have to just wait. I have to let the police and the media tear me apart. There is an open investigation against me. I cannot defend myself. I have to shut up and wait.
I hired a defense attorney when I was arrested. I then saw the police investigation. The five hundred page report they did is almost exclusively interviews of me and my family. I had neighbors who saw things the night of the incident. That was not followed up on. There were witnesses who saw suspicious characters photographing me at an event. Unfortunately, the security cameras at the facility didn’t work. They said there was no forced entry to my house. One person has a key to my house. She was not at any point in the investigation, interviewed by police. They also subpoenaed my mental health records. When I asked about possible evidence that could have been overlooked or lost or taken while my house sat open, I was told that they had what they had. Like lost or missing evidence is of no consequence. The items used in this crime came from inside my house. This is true. But I would have to say that most people have things in their house that could be used to hurt them.
It is a misdemeanor charge.

Here is why it is a much bigger deal than that. I believe that if found guilty of the misdemeanor charge of false reporting, I will then be charged with arson and insurance fraud. I know that insurance fraud papers have been filed. I received no insurance money. When the fire department said that only two hundred dollars of damage was done, I stopped the claim. It was never filed. Well, it turns out that my insurance company found there to be $10,000-$20,000 worth of damage. And though no actual claim was filed and no monies received, the fact that I called my insurance company could make me guilty of insurance fraud.


Here are some interesting points. The county attorney is going after me more harshly than a man who admitted to molesting his children. More harshly than a man who got drunk and crashed a boat into people. More harshly than men who beat women. Also, people who have no attachment to law enforcement in any way have seen the reports. The reports were shown to them by law enforcement officials, in a friend way.
I have never committed a crime. I do not have a history of self-mutilation. I do have mental illness. That does not make me guilty. I did not participate in any of the media surrounding this. I did not benefit from any of the monies donated after the incident. 
The media around this case is very much being held against me. If I had done this for a gay cause, would I not have granted interviews and lead the charge. If I did this because I am mentally ill, why are they so adamant to put me in jail?
The police got away with an inadequate investigation by calling me guilty, by publicizing the details of my case without me being able to defend myself and by keeping a case open against me.
Here is what happened to me during all of this. I was unable to seek mental health treatment as my mental health records were subpoenaed and can be used against me in court. I lost virtually all of my friends. I lost family members. I lost my reputation. I lost my past. I lost my future. I was declared guilty without a trial. I was isolated. I can’t talk about this to anyone. I can’t defend myself to the media. I sit alone, day after day, unable to deal with the trauma. I am afraid. I am alone. I do not sleep. I have difficulty eating. My stomach bleeds. I have tremendous anxiety. I have nightmares. I was left to clean up the house I was hurt in alone. I was left without furniture. I was left with bills I cannot pay. I have been intimidated by the police and the county attorney. I am afraid of law enforcement. I am a victim who wishes she had never called the police. I am a victim who was abandoned by her community.
I guess my point is, please think about what is going on beyond what you read in print. I have been isolated. I have been treated unfairly. I have had hate directed against me every single day since the arrest. I have mental illness. That does not make me guilty. It makes me vulnerable in a system that understands nothing about mental illness. I can’t remember details, partly because that is what our brains do in instances of trauma, and partly because my brain is already made that way due to previous trauma. 
In my opinion, the police were able to take the wind out of a beautiful movement of love and support, to take the fear out of the community, to hide their inadequate investigation… by saying I did it… and then shutting me up.
Before this ends, I have to thank the people who have stood with me. The people who have stayed, who have been there to hold my hand, who have continued to believe though the odds are against me. I am more than an “incident.” I am the person who was a public servant, who started her own business, who made sure folks had food, who volunteered, who took care of her neighbors, who cares about her community, who thinks we all deserve a chance. Despite having every reason not to hope, I still do. Even after all of this.
I will keep fighting. I will keep trying to be heard. I will keep telling the truth. Doing this is going to hurt me and my case. But it might help someone else. It might make someone out there think twice. That makes any bad that comes my way from speaking out worth it. I will not stand by and let someone else be hurt knowing I could have done something about it. I would not have stood by before this happened. I will not now.
Sincerely,
Charlie Kay Rogers"



Did you find the confession or admission of guilt in her statement?

Here is the same statement with analysis in bold type.  Always note how someone chooses to begin their statement as critically important: 



"I do this for me. This is not an attempt to change anything. It is done against the advice of my attorney. I am likely going to jail for a crime committed against me. I feel that I have a responsibility to tell the truth. Due to the circumstances I am facing, this is the only way to do so. 

1.  Always note what is reported first as often central in understanding a statement. 

"I do this for me" is present tense and may indicate the motive for what she did do.  This entire charade was for her, and she begins with exactly this very thing:  for "me."  She did not do this for a cause, or for others, but for herself.  She will, in her own statement, tell us why she did this for herself, and why she did not mind throwing her friends aside once they outlived their usefulness to her.


2.  Always note that which is in the negative as very important.  "This is not an attempt..."

3.  Please note that she "feels" that she has a responsibility to tell the truth.  She may "feel" otherwise at other times, and allows for others to "feel" differently about telling the truth. 

4.  Please note that having a responsibility to tell the truth is not the same as saying "I told the truth" or even "I am telling the truth."  She only tells us of her feeling, but does not assert that she told the truth. 

5.  "A crime committed against me" may be about the friend who helped scratch these words into her body.

What has come first is what Charlie Rogers exists for:  "for me."  She manipulated friends, disparaged supporters and blames everyone else for everything that happened to her.  It is all about her.  Her narcissism will be revealed by her own words.   

On the night of July 22, 2012 I was attacked in my home by three masked men who bound and cut me. They cut derogatory slurs into my body and called me names. They then attempted to set my house on fire. I escaped into my backyard. I was able to get my feet unbound, kick down and fence and run naked to my neighbor’s house. 

1.  Passive language. 

"I was attacked..." instead of "Three masked me attacked me";  "I was attacked" is passive language.   Passivity is used to conceal identity or responsibility, yet she says "by three masked men."  
Question:  If she is to identify them, why use passive language?
Answer:  Because they do not exist.  
Since she has made, and stood by this claim, Charlie Rogers is in the rarest of category of liars:  the one who fabricates reality.  She is a danger to others, as she will show. 

2.  Failure 

Note that they "attempted", which, like "tried" means attempted but failed.  This is different than what she originally reported that they set her house on fire.  This is a subtle minimizing and 

change of what was reported to police.
  
3.  Incomplete sentences indicate self censoring. 

Note "kick down and fence" appears to be a broken or incomplete thought. 

Note that she ran "naked" but does not say that the three masked men took off her clothing.  We allow her to guide us.    


She called the police. I talked to the dispatcher. Fire and rescue came. I was walked a block and a half barely covered and still bound and placed in the back of an ambulance. 

Note that "I was walked" is also passive. 

Note that she was "barely" covered, and still "bound."

Why would walk someone a block and a half who has been cut into her body, bleeding profusely from such cuts?

Answer:  Police affidavit said that Charlie told them that they held her down on the bed while they cut her, yet they could not find the large volume of expected blood.  Had she had real cuts, there would have been blood, and she would have struggled to even stand up, no less walk.

They walked her "still bound"? 

Her initial statement to police must have immediately alerted them to the deception.   

I was taken to the hospital and examined. I was questioned by the police. At one point, a personal cell phone was used by a police officer to record my statement. I was told by an officer that crimes like this don’t happen in Nebraska. As I was being examined, I was asked what medications are I take. I take an anti-depressant and an anti-anxiety medication. I had been previously diagnosed with anxiety, depression and PTSD. 

"I was taken" is also passive, as is "I was told" and later, "I was asked."  This is indicative of a habitual liar:  one who fabricates reality since childhood, has an expectation of being believed, and who, by virture of this expectation, thinks herself smarter than others.

Liars hold the world in contempt.

Please note that Charlie will tell us what is important to Charlie.  A bleeding, attacked and almost killed victim feels the need to mention that her interview was recorded on "a" personal cell phone. 

Why would it matter what it was recorded on?  These are the type of small details that deceptive people give in an attempt to persuade, rather than report fact.

She was questioned about her medications.  This is something routinely done.  Yet for her, she is revealing something very important to her:  

After the police and doctors were done at the hospital, the police placed the keys to my home on the counter in the hospital room and told to go home, that the windows of my house had been opened to air out the smell of gasoline. No police officer escorted me home. I had scrubs on that the hospital gave me and no shoes. A nurse had called a local shelter that had sent an advocate to come sit with me. She took me home.

Note "police and doctors" with police coming first.  Had she had the injuries she wanted the world to believe, I expect "doctors" would come before police.  Remember, order speaks to priority.  Her criminal status is more important to her than her physical or health status.

Note that the police "placed the keys..."  This shows that she had expected something entirely different.  She had expectations of something more in the line of respect, dignity, and to be treated above all other patients in the hospital.  Charlie Rogers had unmet expected needs.

What is the theme of this portion of her statement?  Think back to her video:  "I am a person" and this warrants "a level of respect":  Buy reporting her lack of clothing, shoes and no escort, she is feeling inconsequential, just as she revealed in her statement.  

If she is making this assertion that what happened was truthful, why would it matter that "no police officer escorted" her home?  It is important to her.  This is not about a crime, but of her lack of being "respected" or "honored."

The entire statement, thus far, has been, sadly, about the lack of respect she feels from others, and how inconsequential she feels in life.  

Note that she had "scrubs" on.   This is important later.

Charlie Rogers, in planning this, expected celebrity and to be given the Red Carpet Treatment. Go back to the original anlaysis and see how she said, "this deserves" and how she felt the need to declare herself a "person."

So, I am left at my house alone

         Here is the motive to her crime and why she is writing to the public. 

"I am left" is also present tense.  This reduces commitment and may indicate that Charlie is story telling rather than reporting truthfully.  She is being deceptive, which is seen in her need to explain "why" something common is done.  This is all about her.  The first sentence told the truth.  She did this for her.  She did not do it for a cause.  She did it for her.  She is alone and she has bills to pay (see further ahead)

 


I got my dogs from my neighbor and went to a friend’s house. She graciously took me and my dogs in. In the aftermath of the ordeal, I asked my friend to go to my house to get some clothes for me, as I was still in the bloody scrubs I left the hospital in. 

She had the present of mind to get her dogs, but not her clothes.  Was this deliberate?  She had her dogs, but not her clothes.

She went home first, but did not change her clothes.  Now, the hospital scrubs are "bloody scrubs" but when she was in the hospital, they were only "scrubs."  Why didn't she shower and change her clothes?

Was it that the "bloody scrubs" were a trophy for her?  Why did she ask her friend to go get them when she just came from there? 

Note the hypersensitivity of "left" indicates missing information.  She was "left" alone.  She "left" the hospital.  She only had an advocate "sit" with her.  (body posture in a statement shows an increase of tension for the subject.

"A" friend indicates a desire to conceal the identity.  It is distancing language and we may want to know why she feels the need to distance herself:  is this the "friend" who's DNA was in the gloves?  This may be the one who said "we need to stop teaching hate" (see analysis) 

She and a friend of hers went to get clothes for me. 


Since she went home, she could have gotten clothes, but instead she went to "a" friend, not "my friend" and now "a friend" has "a friend" also.  This is distancing language.   Not "two friends" went, but "a friend of hers."  This is likely someone Charlie does not like, or approve of, or is jealous of. It is a negative reference towards someone who was doing her a favor.

She did not receive the expected attention from the police nor the hospital, and could sense the lack of "respect" she was shown, as they did not believe her.  She now receives some attention, even if it is only from "a friend" and "a friend of a friend"; showing distance. 


She took pictures of the inside of the house so that I could see the damage to the house. 

Note the sensitivity.  She took pictures "so" Charlie could see the damage.  She had just been in the house.  This may be the friend, who is only "a" friend (identity concealed) who helped scratch into her skin.  (see prior analysis)  


My door was completely broken down. The house was not at all secured. This was the house I was sent home to alone by the police after having been attacked. This friend posted pictures of some writing in my basement on Facebook. Her intentions, I am sure, were good. It, however, was a surprise to me that it had been posted. I did not ask her to do so, nor did I know it had been done until it was already done.

This may be her way of saying she did not seek publicity; the very thing she sought, but cannot bring herself to make a direct lie. 
"Completely broken down" is said with the sensitivity of "completely."  Compare this later when she references the police.  Police said, "No sign of forced entry."  It was either "completely" broken down, or no sign of forced entry.  One was lying.

Also at this time, vigils began taking place across Nebraska and across the nation. They were beautiful expressions of love and support. I did not have any part in the organization of any of these events or of any fund raisers. I made no appearances at any of them. I was still reeling from what had happened. 

She blames police and now returns to passive language:  "vigils began taking place" that were "beautiful expressions of love and support" the very thing she craves. 

Charlie Rogers reveals not only the hatred of being inconsequential, here she shows her narcissistic side: 

"I did not have any part" turns to "I made no appearances", as if a celebrity.  She was still "reeling" from what had happened, but not "injured", which explains why she was walked to the ambulance and not "honored" with a stretcher ride.  

First responders did not believe her, either. 


Very early on, the idea of a hoax came into play

This is likely a truthful statement since she wrote about "watch me" on Facebook weeks prior to the hoax.  

The police were issuing statements. The media was everywhere. 

Note the consistent use of passivity.  Passivity conceals.  Here, "the police were issuing statements" is true, yet, what is she concealing?  

Police did not issue any statements casting doubt on her account.  
No blogs had raised doubts. 
No body language experts raised doubt.  

The media may have "been everywhere" but no media reported doubt. 

I responded to no requests for interviews. I ended up doing one interview for an Omaha television station to try to squash the rumors of hoax, to express my gratitude for the vigils, but also to express that I was trying to heal and wished to be left alone.

Here we see how deception via passivity works.  
"I ended up doing" continues with her passive language.  She responded to no requests:  is it that no one requested an interview?

"Rumors of hoax" in articles where her account was covered, no where were doubts.  When someone leaving a comment questioned the veracity, the commentator was met with "homophobe" and "hate" responses.  Her support was powerful and there was no one, anywhere (except here) doubting her story.  Statement Analysis did not 'doubt' her story, but reported that it was deceptive.  

Note the purpose of the interview:

1.  Try to squash rumors
2.  Express gratitude for the vigils
3.  Express that she was trying to heal
4.  Wanted to be left alone 

In her interview, she did not address rumors, nor anything else she claims she did the interview for.  

She wanted attention, desperately, and received it.  Rogers fears being "alone" more than anything else. 


Two days passed before I was contacted by the investigator of the case. Two days in which my house was left entirely open. People were in and out. My insurance people were in the house as were my friends who got my clothes. I know not who all was in there. Items were left on my doorstep. People were around. There is no way to know who was in and out of the house. A second canvasing was done of my property for evidence after these two days, as a teaching mechanism for students. There is no telling what evidence may have been lost or damaged during the time my house sat open.

We flag "sit, standing, sitting," etc as a show of increase of tension when found in a statement.  The exception is when an inanimate object is described as "sitting, laying down, standing..." It is often an indicator of responsibility.  "I saw the drugs sitting on the table":  drugs do not sit, stand, nor sit down again.  It may be that the subject put the drugs there.  In this case, her house did not "sit"; an indication that she may have left it open, herself. 









Then it started to get bad. 

This is also true, but only for Charlie Rogers.  One might think that it was "starting to get bad" when three masked men broke into her home, but that is not what the subject tells us.  Her troubles began when the investigation progressed: 



I had my first interview with the investigator. It was four hours long. I was again photographed, naked. I was interrogated. I felt very much like a suspect and not a victim. 


The "bad" is from the police, not from the "three masked men"; 

note "again" photographed "naked", indicating that she was photographed naked previously.  Did she not anticipate that she would have the wounds photographed as evidence?

"I was interrogated" is also passive.  This is her consistent use of passivity.  "I was photographed" shows the same use of passivity.  Everything is done to her, rather than her participation.  This is the distancing language she uses without. 


I gave permission for my computer to be looked at. A few days later, I gave permission for my phone to be examined.


Note the change of language:  she gave permission for:


1.  her computer to only be "looked at"

2.  her phone to be "examined."

An "examination" is much more serious than simply "looking" at something.  This suggests that she had more concern about one over the other. 


I hired an attorney that was recommended by a friend of mine. She was hired with the idea of managing the fund raising money and the interview requests, as I was totally overwhelmed and had no idea how to deal with any of it. She was not a criminal defense attorney. I had no idea I needed one.


When someone is to tell us "what happened" we always flag the word "because" (or since, therefore, so, etc) as it shows the need to explain why something was done.  "With the idea" indicates that she has a sensitive need to explain why she hired an attorney.  

Also note that which is presented in the negative as very important.  The attorney is a very sensitive topic, and now she wants her audience to know that the attorney is not a criminal defense attorney. 

"I had no idea" is not a reliable statement, ever.  It often indicates that the subject does not want to engage further. 



The interrogation of me continued over the course of the investigation with a final total time of somewhere between 12-16 hours. My immediate family members were interviewed. No one else was interviewed as a suspect. I was the number one suspect the whole time. I was never advised of this. I was never given my Miranda rights. I was never warned. I kept cooperating. I did not know that it was me they were after.


In Statement Analysis, we carefully note the use of the word "never" in an open statement.  It is used by liars instead of using "did not"; it is only appropriate when answering a question of "ever" as appropriate.  


Note "family" is identified as "immediate" family, without any polite social introduction suggesting a bad relationship between the subject and her immediate family.  

Note that family was "interviewed" but she was "interrogated."

It was later reported that Rogers blamed her father for carving a cross into her flesh.  This was later shown to be a false attempt to blame people of faith (hate crime) for it.  


As we look at "never" as unreliable, let's look at her list of "nevers" within her statement:


1.  "I was never advised of this"

2.  "I was never given my Miranda rights"
3.  "I was never warned"

She has used "never" three times, close together. 


Deception indicated.  


When police interview and interrogate, they do not "warn" the suspect, "You are a suspect and we think you are lying and we will then give you your Miranda warning before we continue..."


Miranda is done at the time of the arrest.  She is referencing the interview process, not the arrest.  


She was "never" given her Miranda during the interview.  This is likely true.  It would come after. 


She was "never" warned that they did not believe her, even though they saw that there was no blood on the bed sheets that she claimed to have been held down upon. 


The investigation culminated in a meeting with my former attorney, me and the two officers working on the case. Another four hours. One where they told me I did it. I kept insisting that I did not. They called in a mental health professional. I was accused of having multiple personalities, black outs. I have none of these. They tried to put me in emergency protective custody, but could not. Instead, I was told by the mental health professional that she would be calling every hour on the hour. If I did not answer one of those calls, the police would be there to get me. 


They feared that she was so mentally ill that she might harm herself.  

Then I was arrested. 


The word "then" shows a passage of time.  This indicates that something happened between the arrest and the engagement with mental health professionals.  What might be missing?

The Miranda warning given. 


Things went from bad to worse. 

The attack was an "event" and it was only "bad" when investigators questioned her.  Now, it is even "worse."  Nothing is worse than an attack by three masked men carving into her flesh.  Because it did not happen, things can be, after a fake attack "bad" and even "worse."

What is beyond "bad" and "worse" of a vicious attack?

An arrest for an attack that did not take place, and did not impact. 


The media was everywhere. I was placed in emergency protective custody immediately after my arrest. Not because I had made any threats of self -harm. It was because the police, my attorney, an acquaintance and an ex thought I might hurt myself after being arrested. That set of circumstances had never been seen before by the staff at the mental health facility.

Note that she reports first, in the negative, about threats of self harm.  This is very sensitive. 

1.  She does not deny making threats of self harm.
2.  Police thought she might harm herself. 
3.  Her attorney thought she might harm herself.
4.  An acquaintance thought
5.  An ex thought

She was feeling so inconsequential, that she invented a story to set a "fire" for the world to see.  When the "fire" was put out by the "bad" investigators, she had no reason to live.  

Note that "emergency protective custody" is repeated in the statement, maknig it sensitive to her.  It is likely that by placing her (and later releasing her) in regards to "Emergency Protective Custody" made her feel important and gave her the attention she craved.  Protective custody is to be "eyes on" supervision.  This brought her the satisfaction that the EMT, hospital staff and police failed to give her.
Think of her Facebook message:  "Watch ME"



Since the case remained open at the time of my arrest and remains open to this day, my attorney advised me to not talk about the case while I was in emergency protective custody. So this translated in the official police reports as me being uncooperative while I was there. That is not true.

Note that "that" is not true, therefore, it was "this" which is true.  What is the "this" that exists?

Remember the story of the kid who's teacher reported to his mom:  "Johnny ran up to Sally, pulled her hair and knocked her to the ground."  Johnny said, "I didn't do that!"

The article said, "since there is a "that", there must exist a "this."  The mother asked Johnny what he did, actually, do. 

"I didn't run up to her."

He had pulled her hair and knocked her to the ground.  He was near her and did not have to "run up to her"; therefore, the denial of "that" means that there exists a "this" that did happen.  


I was released from emergency protective custody to a virtual storm of hate. The police chief had held a press conference. He released an alarming amount of information about my case. When asked why he had released so much more information than usual by a reporter, he responded by saying that he wanted the public to know a thorough investigation had been done. A thorough investigation, but during the first two thirds of his press conference he had my name wrong.

Note:  she complained that the initial interview was recorded on a "personal" cell phone.  This attacks the phone, not the facts of the interview. 
Here, she attacks the misuse of her name.  
Note, "Charlie" is a man's name; short for "Charles."

Note the phrase "virtual" storm of hate.  This means that there was not a storm of hate, but a "virtual" storm of hate; that is, on the internet. 

At the time of her TV appearance, she was at the height of "love and support" with Statement Analysis being the only exception.  It is likely that any Search Engine would have landed her here. 

But by the time she was arrested, some of the supportive websites had turned on her.  She may be referencing them also.

Police were very sensitive to the fact that they could have been met with an avalanche of political correctness and chants of "homophobe" for not believing her story.  They had a need to be 
thorough, beyond the norm, due to the political atmosphere.  They were about to release information in the face of protests, candlelight vigils, donations, tattoos and high emotions. 

I also believe that police did not want the lesbian community there to feel afraid to report hate crimes just because Rogers had reported a fake crime.  

Charlie Rogers was the one who put lesbians at risk of fearing to make a report; not the police. If Charlie Rogers considers herself part of the lesbian community, it is she, not three masked men, nor the police, nor the media, who hurt her community and brought shame in, by her own actions.  

Please note that she disparaged males in "the three masked men" just as she attempted to disparage people of faith (her own father).  

What really happens is this. I am perceived as guilty by my community. No trial needed. No questions asked. 

Here at Statement Analysis, we did not receive a single insult in the comments section, nor in the Spam folder.  Even when someone did not agree with the analysis, it was the analysis itself disagreed with, not the motive, nor was name-calling used.  

"I am preceived" is passive language.  Note her own references to guilt.

Rogers attempted to use political correctness to make herself of consequence to others.  The police, friends, and professionals all had adequate reason for wanting her in protective custody.  


People took back donated monies. 


Note the passivity used.  It is not that she returned donations, or that her lawyer returned donations.  "people took back" is to blame them. 
Note that "took back" is strong.  She did not "refund" them and was likely opposed to any refunds.  She did this, she told us, for herself, and later will complain that she has bills piling up. 

                                 Lying and Theft are siblings. 

The them of Charlie Rogers blaming others, continues:

 
I was used by “causes” when it was convenient for them. 

Them:  the people who donated money. 

The news media that addressed itself as homosexual in their titles or in their introductions, supported Charlie Rogers.  She was not disparaged until after the arrest.  


I was left when an accusation was made. 


This is the dominant theme for her.  She was left. 

She was left alone. 
She was left by police.
She was left by those who took their money back.
She was left by supporters.  

She was sentenced to something, in her mind, far worse than prison or jail:  She was sentenced to being inconsequential.  

Again. 

A narcissist puts all of her eggs in one basket. 

The basket is human.

Human fraility will always let others down, but when one lives as the center of the universe, thinking that all should exist to her benefit, the inevitable let down is severe. 

Serving others is fulfilling.  Serving oneself is, in the beginning, enjoyable, but eventually leaves one alone and destroyed.

Charlie Rogers, narcissist, has turned on everyone and now, the last of them are targeted by her venom:  

Those who supported her. 

She has acute abandonment issues.  There is too much being "left" for her to bear.  She thought she deserved a police escort, and when she did not get one, she kept her scrubs on in order to manipulate friends into going back into her house to get clothes, only to later claim that they destroyed evidence. 

This is the nature of passive language:  she will not accept responsibility.  She manipulated her friends into going into the house to get clothes that she refused to get, so that she could not only have others wait on her, but she could claim the evidence is destroyed. 

She is intelligent.  She is manipulative.  She is selfish and does not mind using others.  She wore her "trophy" in order to gain sympathy for others.  

What would have happened if three innocent males had been incarcerated and beaten in jail for crimes they did not commit?

Hate crime?  Charlie Rogers is the perpetrator of a hate crime, not the victim. 


They wanted a poster child. Their intention was never to really help me. 

"Really" qualifies the help.  This acknowledges that people did try to help her. 


Hateful things were said about me in the media. The people who had been supportive the week before were gone. And I get to say nothing. I have to just wait. I have to let the police and the media tear me apart. There is an open investigation against me. I cannot defend myself. I have to shut up and wait.

This is why her defense attorney told her not to address the public:  he is attempting to protect her because of her guilt.  

Note the verb tense is present.  Yet, she is talking here.  She said she went on TV to say that she told the truth, yet she did not say "I told the truth" and cannot bring herself to say that here. 

She betrayed the trust of her community

I hired a defense attorney when I was arrested. I then saw the police investigation.

Note that when being investigated, she did not "see" the police investigation.  When she saw the testing, or when she was interviewed, taped and interrogated, she did not report "seeing" the police investigation.  When she was given her Miranda warning, she did not see the investigation. 

When she hired a defense attorney, she then "saw" the police investigation. 

 The five hundred page report they did is almost exclusively interviews of me and my family.

Note the word "almost" as relative. 
Besides interviews of her and her family, police had:

DNA test results
Forensic experts testimony
Receipts for the items used in the attack
Testimony of sales person who sold items to her that were used in scratching her flesh. 

 I had neighbors who saw things the night of the incident. That was not followed up on. There were witnesses who saw suspicious characters photographing me at an event. Unfortunately, the security cameras at the facility didn’t work. They said there was no forced entry to my house. One person has a key to my house. She was not at any point in the investigation, interviewed by police. 

Note "things" is vague without anything specific.
Note that she, who had not "made appearances" had been photographed by "suspicious characters":  "characters" is gender neutral.  Would you not want such suspicious "characters" be identified, in the least, by gender? 

Three men could have been falsely accused and here she is throwing a female under suspicion to the public.  

Note "they said there was no forced entry to my house" is not disputed by her. 
Note that it is a "house" and not a "home" in this context. 

They also subpoenaed my mental health records. When I asked about possible evidence that could have been overlooked or lost or taken while my house sat open, I was told that they had what they had. Like lost or missing evidence is of no consequence. The items used in this crime came from inside my house. This is true. But I would have to say that most people have things in their house that could be used to hurt them.
It is a misdemeanor charge.

Here she comes very close to confessions.  
1.  It is only "possible" evidence
2.  "Like lost or missing evidence" is not to say "lost or missing evidence" only "like."  It is a statement with distance (no commitment) to where it belongs. 
3.  "The items used in this crime came from inside my house."  (note "house" and not "home").  This was originally denied by her yet police had evidence of her purchasing these items.  They even told her that upon her denial of the gloves that they would test for DNA.  She still denied owning, purchasing or touching the gloves.  Her DNA was inside of the gloves. 
4.  "But I would have to say" instead of simply stating it, shows distancing language. 

5.  Confession:  "it's a misdemeanor charge" comes close to a confession (or at least an admission) that she knows what she did was a misdemeanor and not a felony. 

Question:  What changed this to a felony?

Answer:  She, like Kerry Dunn before her, was given an opportunity to tell her "hate crime" story to federal investigators.  Lying to a federal investigator is a Felony.  It is a "bigger deal" lying to federal law enforcement than local. 

Here is why it is a much bigger deal than that. I believe that if found guilty of the misdemeanor charge of false reporting, I will then be charged with arson and insurance fraud. I know that insurance fraud papers have been filed. I received no insurance money. When the fire department said that only two hundred dollars of damage was done, I stopped the claim. It was never filed. Well, it turns out that my insurance company found there to be $10,000-$20,000 worth of damage. And though no actual claim was filed and no monies received, the fact that I called my insurance company could make me guilty of insurance fraud.


Here, she wanted to make money off the fake hate, but when she heard that it was only $200, she pulled her claim.  Now she thinks it is far much more, she is concerned about being charged with fraud. 


She blames the police. 


Next she confesses to her crime:


"The fact that I called my insurance company could make me guilty of insurance fraud."


She acknowledges that just calling could lead her to being guilty of insurance fraud. This, she calls a "fact."


In order for her to be "guilty" of insurance fraud, it would have to be fraudulent.  She uses the word "could" regarding the call, rather than the receiving of money or the actual filing of a claim. 


She presupposes guilt due to the reporting, and leaves the question as to the filing or receiving of money.  This can only be if it is false. 


She presupposes that her call to the insurance company is a fraud and only debates if it could be so since she only called, but did not file, and did not receive money.  She admits that if either is accepted, she is guilty.    


    Charlie Rogers confesses to the false hate crime report. 


This is why her defense attorney told her not to speak out. 



Here are some interesting points. The county attorney is going after me more harshly than a man who admitted to molesting his children. More harshly than a man who got drunk and crashed a boat into people. More harshly than men who beat women. 


Here she now accuses the county attorney of going after her more harshly.  She does not accuse the county attorney of going after her unjustly, or unfairly, only more "harshly."  This is another admission that defense attorneys do not want.  Her attorney will attempt, if possible, to keep this written statement out of her trial.  


Note that she references three cases:


1.  A man who admitted molesting his children. 

2.  A man who got drunk and crashed his boat.
3.  Men who beat women. 

Question:  What do all three cases have in common?

Answer:   Men. 

Question:  What three persons did Charlie Rogers seek to get accused for her false crime?


Answer:   Three men


Question:  What person did Charlie Rogers accuse of carving a cross into her flesh?


Answer:  A man, her father. 


This is Charlie Rogers' hatred of men.  



Also, people who have no attachment to law enforcement in any way have seen the reports. The reports were shown to them by law enforcement officials, in a friend way.
I have never committed a crime. 


Statement Analysis principle:  "Never" does not mean "did not."  Please see analysis of Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones for highlighting the principle of "never" in analysis. 



I do not have a history of self-mutilation. I do have mental illness. That does not make me guilty. I did not participate in any of the media surrounding this. I did not benefit from any of the monies donated after the incident. 


She did not say that she did not "self mutilate.

Note that she uses the word "guilty" next to the pronoun "me"
Note that she did not "benefit" from the monies.  This is not to say that she did not "receive" or even "spend", only that she did not "benefit."  Did her attorney benefit?  Did someone else?


The media around this case is very much being held against me. If I had done this for a gay cause, would I not have granted interviews and lead the charge. If I did this because I am mentally ill, why are they so adamant to put me in jail?


Note that she acknowledges her crime, but seeks to be excused due to "mental illness" yet she says "lead the charge" of a "gay cause", which shows premeditation.  Her Facebook posting weeks earlier also show that this was a cause that she would lead and set the world "on fire", just as she set her house on fire. 


The police got away with an inadequate investigation by calling me guilty, by publicizing the details of my case without me being able to defend myself and by keeping a case open against me.


She does not say it is a false investigation or a wrong investigation, only "inadequate", which indicates that there is more to this investigation.  Police have yet to arrest her accomplice and Rogers might be feeling "left alone" to take the responsibility for the cause, by herself.  It is likely, according to the language she used, and the medical examination, that she had help in scratching in the hate words. 


Here is what happened to me during all of this. I was unable to seek mental health treatment as my mental health records were subpoenaed and can be used against me in court. 


Please note that while records are being subpoenaed or under subpoena, we can still visit our doctors, therapists, counselors, etc. 


Her complaint here is that if she went to seek mental health help, the record of such would end up in court.  


This is an other admission of guilt.  


I lost virtually all of my friends. 


She went to her house, deliberately left her clothes behind, only to break the hearts of her friends and make them go get them, so that she could blame them for contaminating evidence.  She used, manipulated and 'hated' her friends.  


I lost family members. 


She falsely accused her father of a vile hate crime and attempted to indict religion as the motive.  She could have caused her father to go to jail.  She 'hated' him.  


I lost my reputation. 


I lost my past.


 I lost my future.


 I was declared guilty without a trial. 


I was isolated. 


I can’t talk about this to anyone. 


I can’t defend myself to the media.


 I sit alone, day after day, unable to deal with the trauma. 


I am afraid. 


I am alone. 


I do not sleep. 


I have difficulty eating.  My stomach bleeds. 


I have tremendous anxiety. 


I have nightmares. 


I was left to clean up the house I was hurt in alone. 


I was left without furniture.


 I was left with bills I cannot pay. 


I have been intimidated by the police and the county attorney.


 I am afraid of law enforcement. 


I am a victim who wishes she had never called the police. 


I am a victim who was abandoned by her community.


The severe use of the pronoun "I" sums it up.  Her love of self, above all others, has destroyed her.  She blames her friends, supporters, and the police.  She takes no responsibility.  She wants pity, so that it will lead to donations, but not the truth.  She has exacted a great deal from others. 


       This highlights the destructive power of lying.   


She was "left" by driving others away from her, with her lies and her hatred.  


She blamed innocent men. 

She betrayed her lesbian community. 
She blamed law enforcement. 
She blamed hospital staff.
She blamed EMT staff. 
She blamed a friend who had a key.
She blamed media. 
She manipulated her lesbian community, her friends and then sought to destroy her own father. 

She willingly took money from strangers because she successfully manipulated them in her 464 word, 5 minute video appearance.


She cost taxpayers the expense of a false investigation.  


She did all of this yet still seeks to manipulate the emotions of others by posting this publicly. 


I guess my point is, please think about what is going on beyond what you read in print.


What would she likes us to "think about"?  She does not make us wait long to find out:  



 I have been isolated. 


I have been treated unfairly. 


I have had hate directed against me every single day since the arrest. 


I have mental illness. That does not make me guilty. It makes me vulnerable in a system that understands nothing about mental illness.  I can’t remember details, partly because that is what our brains do in instances of trauma, and partly because my brain is already made that way due to previous trauma.


Yet she cannot say, "I lied" and "I" caused all of these problems.  She wanted to be front and center of a cause and movement that police destroyed by finding out the truth.  She, herself, says so:   


In my opinion, the police were able to take the wind out of a beautiful movement of love and support, to take the fear out of the community, to hide their inadequate investigation… by saying I did it… and then shutting me up.


This shows that she still does not understand that no one wants her lies; not her community, not her family, not the police, and not the public. 


Beautiful movement to Charlie Rogers means giving her attention and giving her money.  Notice next how many times she uses the word "me":  


Before this ends, I have to thank the people who have stood with me. The people who have stayed, who have been there to hold my hand, who have continued to believe though the odds are against me. I am more than an “incident.” I am the person who was a public servant, who started her own business, who made sure folks had food, who volunteered, who took care of her neighbors, who cares about her community, who thinks we all deserve a chance. Despite having every reason not to hope, I still do. Even after all of this.

She was, but no longer is, this "person" who helped others.  


I will keep fighting. I will keep trying to be heard. I will keep telling the truth. Doing this is going to hurt me and my case. 


Charlie Rogers was unable to say that this investigation was a "false" investigation and say the easiest of words for a truthful person to say:


"I told the truth."


Instead, she acknowledges that she, herself, and her case, will be hurt by the truth.  


She has admitted, in several places, that this was a fake hate hoax.  She has hurt her community, family and friends, blames everyone but herself, yet will continue to do so, even though she knows she is going to jail.


In prison, Professor Kerry Dunn spent her time writing. 


She wrote papers on "ethics."


Irony noted.   


But it might help someone else. It might make someone out there think twice. That makes any bad that comes my way from speaking out worth it. I will not stand by and let someone else be hurt knowing I could have done something about it. I would not have stood by before this happened. I will not now.
Sincerely,
Charlie Kay Rogers"

The expected:

"I was attacked by three men and when I reported this to the police, I told the truth."


What we received:


"I was attacked by three men" without the verbal verification of "I told the truth."  Instead she gives us several indications that she acknowledges her guilt in making a false report, and that she has attempted to blame anyone and everyone else for her actions. 


She felt inconsequential and committed crimes to benefit only herself.  


She sought fame and recognition. 

She sought insurance money. 

She used those closest to her, and then discarded them afterwards, blaming them for her own condition of loneliness.  Because she is the most important person in her world, anyone who does not acknowledge her as such may be attacked, blamed or, in the least, discarded.  


She showed hatred of men, hatred of people of faith, and eventually, hatred of her supporters and friends. 


She highlights the danger of a liar.  

The police failed.

The police stopped the love and support.   She didn't bother to say that they failed to find the three masked men.   She has no fear of them and no concern that others will be harmed by them.  She needed the money, cannot make her bills, and police have ruined it all.


She has rage against those who donated money but then "took it back" from her, just when she needed not only to pay her bills, but to hire a defense attorney.
She may be looking at insurance fraud, false reporting (federal) as well as fraud with regards to the donations. 
She may be facing even more years than her protege, Professor Dunn. 

More on Professor Dunn found HERE

Charlie Rogers is angry that the police took the fear out of the community.  
It was a ticket to benefit her. 

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

The investigation culminated in a meeting with my former attorney, me and the two officers working on the case. Another four hours. One where they told me I did it.

She embeds "I did it" in this sentence. Is this another admission of guilt?

As I understood it, this was posted at a friend's FB page. This just gives her a reason to deny later that she wrote it, since her "friend" would say she wrote it for her, should of course this be used against her.

I believe from what she was up to, that she was trying to taint evidence by stating that there were people in her house after the "event" took place, so if there is any evidence, a Penellas 12 jury would be fooled into believing that there is "reasonable doubt" as to whether she did this to herself or not.

I have no faith in Americans. They have demonstrated their stupidity over and over again, and this criminal has a great opportunity to go scot free with her antics. You are right about liars, they hate the thought of being ousted as one. You should also throw in the word count for the pronoun "my" too.

Anonymous said...

This was posted by Charlie, and shared by a friend on FB. These are her words.

Mouse74 said...

I don't think she'll be getting off scott free either.

Anonymous said...

She said "I did this" twice. She said "I did it" she said "make me guilty" twice. she said " I will keep telling the truth. Doing this is going to hurt me and my case."

Nuff said
Anna

Anonymous said...

Charlie bit more than my finger this time...what a narcissistic monster.

Anonymous said...

'In my opinion, the police were able to take the wind out of a beautiful movement of love and support, to take the fear out of the community, to hide their inadequate investigation… by saying I did it… and then shutting me up.'

Yes the police were able to take the fear out of the community when the evidence showed that this awful woman committed the crimes herself, that there were no three masked men out there that hated lesbians. So Charlie admits that she would rather have her community live in fear than admit her hate and lies.

Charlie Rodgers should be found guilty of a hate crime.

Once she placed the call to her insurance company and claimed damage/s she was filing a claim. Even if she collected no money, say because the damage was less than the deductible on the policy, she would still have filed a claim. I'd bet that Charlie didn't mind the claim being filed and open when the claim's adjustor told her the damage looked to be between $10,000 and $20,000. Those two words $10,000 and $20,000 sounded a whole lot better to Charlie than the two words she started hearing-fraud and arson.

Sorry Charlie you created that sad, lonely place you live in because of your insatiable love of yourself and your endless ability to hate all others that failed to adore you.

Anonymous said...

Rats I knew it was weird she said about the misdemeanor charge.
Fascinating and twisted stuff !
Anna

Hobnob said...

I responded to no requests for interviews. I ended up doing one interview for an Omaha television station to try to squash the rumors of hoax, to express my gratitude for the vigils, but also to express that I was trying to heal and wished to be left alone.

Things that make me go hmmmm
earlier on in her statement i see her whining that she was left alone in her home No police officer escorted me home. I had scrubs on that the hospital gave me and no shoes. A nurse had called a local shelter that had sent an advocate to come sit with me. She took me home.So, I am left at my house alone.
Yet now in the same statement she tells she wishes to be left alone so which is it to be?
They are mutually exclusive so i wonder if she is bi-polar, She is in 2 minds about everythin and it shows in her statements

Hobnob said...

.” I am the person who was a public servant, who started her own business, who made sure folks had food, who volunteered, who took care of her neighbors, who cares about her community, who thinks we all deserve a chance. Despite having every reason not to hope, I still do. Even after all of this.

Here we see her self entitlement, her justification.
I did all this for you,now YOU OWE ME.
I am calling in my favors, my debts.
Note she says people took back their donations rather than had them returned. this implies force on their part rather than positive acction by her attorney. his makes me wonder if the monies hadn't been returned willingly then further charges could and would have been laid such as obtaining money by deception. Is this why her attorney didn't give her access to the fund until after any investigation? she knew her story was a pack of lies and acted to prevent further charges against her client.
It seems what charlie wants charlie gets, they help and support to stop her whining,to not antagonise her, don't annoy the crazy woman, if you do she will do something stupid and we get the blame. All too true as we can see, everyone who didn't do what she demanded or expected is now badmouthed, will she now startnsuing for perceived injustices,imagines thefts or slights?
I can see her seriously doing herself some serious harm simply to get the attention she craves,another faked attack, another fire and claims of see i told you so. She is a danger to herself and possibly others, she may set a fire in a friends house with her and them inside and claim they were attacked because the friend supported her. I wouldn't trust her as far as as Felix Baumgartner can jump from a balloon

Anonymous said...

Aug 22, 2012 NY Daily News
"Although she said she was attacked on the bed, it was found tidy and without blood. A forensic pathologist said the cuts on her body were “superficial, symetrical (sic), avoided sensitive areas of the body, appear that they would have taken considerable time to do and are accessible to the victim and follow the victim’s frame of reference,” the World-Herald reported.
Her FB 4 days prior to "the incident" - "“So maybe I am too idealistic, but I believe way deep inside me that we can make things better for everyone. I will be a catalyst. I will do what it takes. I will. Watch me,”

Ya know not just a fraud but a really bad one.
Anna

BostonLady said...

OT - http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/11/12/dunn-hailey-nancy-grace-mysteries-investigation-day-1

Nancy Grace revisits Hailey Dunn investigation on Friday night !

Nancy Grace Mysteries | See all 37 items
Day 1: What happened to Hailey Dunn?
By HLNtv.com Staff
updated 4:44 PM EST, Mon November 12, 2012
NEED TO KNOW

What do you remember about the Hailey Dunn case?
Follow the case on twitter @NancyGraceHLN #NGM

Seamus O Riley said...

Sorry Charlie you created that sad, lonely place you live in because of your insatiable love of yourself and your endless ability to hate all others that failed to adore you.
November 12, 2012 5:32 PM


Well said, Anonymous!

Peter

Jen said...

" I felt very much like a suspect and not a victim."

A true victim does not see themselves as anything other than a victim. She doesn't say the police treated her like a suspect, she says that she 'felt' like a suspect...she controls how she feels and admits she did not feel like a victim.

Wreyeter72 said...

Well this just proves how very far I am from understanding statement analysis. At first I though her statements were strong and she sounded truthful. As I read, I did notice a few changes in tenses that made my brow wrinkle in confusion. But for the most part I thought her statement was pretty convincing. Til I read the comments ha!

Anonymous said...

Is Charlie Rogers destined to be a homeless bag lady eventually? When this is all over, who will hire her, where will she live after she has lost her house, family, friends, and has no one left to turn too? Just a matter of time.

Will she be one of those pitiful disturbed women who wears several layers of clothing, walks the streets mumbling to herself, carries everything she owns in a grocery cart? Does her posting on Facebook from the public library, looks constantly for pay phones, needs to call this one, that one; showers occasionally at a homeless shelter, eats there when she can find the presence of mind to do so? The world at large has no patience for mental illness. She will be totally left to her own devices and ignored.

I can almost visualize it. Where will she go? What will she do?

Anonymous said...

Is Charlie Rogers destined to be a homeless bag lady eventually? When this is all over, who will hire her, where will she live after she has lost her house, family, friends, and has no one left to turn too? Just a matter of time.

Will she be one of those pitiful disturbed women who wears several layers of clothing, walks the streets mumbling to herself, carries everything she owns in a grocery cart? Does her posting on Facebook from the public library, looks constantly for pay phones, needs to call this one, that one; showers occasionally at a homeless shelter, eats there when she can find the presence of mind to do so? The world at large has no patience for mental illness. She will be totally left to her own devices and ignored.

I can almost visualize it. Where will she go? What will she do?

Anonymous said...

:) Thank you Seamus!

HobNob I don't think there is anything bipolar about Charlie wanting to be left alone and hating being left alone. She wants to be left alone when people are unto her, they see thru the lies and they look at her with condemning eyes because the lies told cause such hate and fear in others. Who wouldn't want to be left alone? I had to laugh when Charlie added the part about using that alone time to heal! OMG Charlie I hope society gives your several years in a prison cell to ponder your deep thoughts about love and happiness and heal yourself.

Now when Charlie is playing the victim she wants to be treated like Cinderella at the party. Little sparkly slippers tiptoeing thru the rose petals strewn in her path, door men to open doors and assist her down from her regal carriage. Little people fixing her hair and sewing her the most beautiful clothes in the kingdom. I bet she was seething being released from the hospital in scrubs. What did she expect from a hospital? Where'd she think she was at Bloomingdale's? Nah IMO she knew she was at the hospital but she believes she is so important that people at the hospital should have all chipped in their paychecks and ran over to Bloomingdale's to pick her up some nice outfits to help lift her spirits. Boy that didn't work out according to plan.....

Anonymous said...

This woman ( Charlie Rogers ) is a pathetic liar and a disgrace to the REAL victims of hate crimes that often suffer silently without the luxury of media attention. I hope she does some good jail time for this.

Rachael said...

What a boatload of bs she spews, my goodness!

I thought this was interesting:

"If I had done this for a gay cause, would I not have granted interviews and lead the charge. If I did this because I am mentally ill, why are they so adamant to put me in jail?"

Peter, would you be willing to share your thoughts on 'If I had done', vs. 'if I did'?

The impression I get is that she is admitting that she did it for a gay cause, but would now like us to think she did it because she is mentally ill, but I can't quite grasp the sublety of it.

Thanks!

Rachael said...

"I responded to no requests for interviews. I ended up doing one interview for an Omaha television station to try to squash the rumors of hoax, to express my gratitude for the vigils, but also to express that I was trying to heal and wished to be left alone."

I do recall an interview, but I certainly don't recall her expressing any of her listed reasons for giving it. I do recall her opening by saying she wanted to address the accusations (non-existant at the time) of a hoax, but then never directly addressing them, and I recall nothing of vigils, healing, or wanting to be left alone.

She really needs to shush it, she just digs a deeper hole for herself each time she goes 'public'.

Rachael said...

How did the insurance company determine the 10-20k in damage, when she stopped the claim?

And how bizarre is it that at one moment, she lists her neverending 'I
' statements, which paints a mental picture of her alone in the corner of a barren house, suffering, with no one, no friends, no family, no support whatsoever, and then a paragraph later thank the people that have stood by her, held her hand, etc?

Which is it?

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
HAHAHAHA In my opinion, THE POLICE WERE ABLE TO take the wind out of a beautiful movement of love and support, to TAKE THE FEAR OUT OF THE COMMUNITY, to hide their inadequate investigation… by saying I DID IT… and then shutting me up.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
The severe use of the pronoun "I" sums it up.

23 "i"'s, and 5 "I lost"'s.

Meag in Manhattan said...

What jumped out at me the most during Charlie's long winded self absorbed epitaph was her use of the words "HOME" and "HOUSE" and the context for both.

Very interesting.

Most Sincerely,
Meag