Remember the case of the Navy ship the USS Vincennes who mistakenly shot down the Iranian passenger jet? The Captain's name was Will Rogers and after the incident his wife's car exploded and police feared it could be a terrorist act of retribution. I found an old article that says they no longer think that and it could have been a personal vendetta. I'm curious if there's ever been any arrests in the case. Here's part of the article:


Probe Of Van Bombing Shifts?
SAN DIEGO (AP) - A federal inquiry into the bombing of a van driven by the wife of the skipper of the USS Vincennes has shifted the suspected motive from terrorism to a possible personal vendetta, a newspaper reported Sunday.
Investigators are concentrating on an individual who may have had a grudge against the ship's captain, The Los Angeles Times reported, adding that international terrorism hasn't been ruled out as motive.

Authorities initially interpreted the bombing as a terrorist retribution for the mistaken downing of an Iranian commercial jetliner by the Vincennes, an Aegis-class guided missile cruiser commanded at the time by Capt. Will Rogers III.

Rogers' wife, Sharon, was alone in the van and narrowly escaped injury when it was destroyed March 10.

The Times, citing four unnamed sources, said investigators believe the attack may have been the result of an unnamed individual's animosity toward Capt. Rogers. Two sources said the suspect was an American citizen.

Tom Hughes, FBI special agent in charge in San Diego, refused to discuss any aspect of the six-month probe. ``We will have the same position we have in any ongoing investigation,'' he said, ``and that is `no comment.'''

Capt. Rogers expressed surprise.

``I have not the remotest idea of anyone who would take a personal vendetta against me or my family,'' the captain said.

Rogers was in charge of the Vincennes on July 3, 1988, when the commercial Iranian airliner was shot down over the Persian Gulf. All 290 people aboard the plane died.

Rogers told Navy investigators he thought the jetliner was an Iranian jet fighter preparing to attack his ship.

The Pentagon later concluded the ship's crew made crucial errors in their analysis of the aircraft and its intentions, but exonerated Rogers, in part because the airliner failed to respond to the Vincennes' repeated warnings.


Rogers Bombing Not Terrorists?
SAN DIEGO (AP) - Federal investigators now believe someone with a grudge against the USS Vincennes' former skipper, not revenge-minded terrorists, may have bombed the van his wife drove, according to published reports.
The FBI probe has shifted its focus to the possibility that the March 10 bombing was carried out by a U.S. citizen, unconnected with the military, who has a personal vendetta against Capt. Will C. Rogers III, The San Diego Union reported Monday. The paper quoted a Navy official who asked to remain anonymous.

Federal agents have identified such an individual and are checking his alibis, but no further identification or elaboration was available, a Justice Department official said.

The Los Angeles Times quoted four unidentified sources Sunday who also said the FBI probe is focusing on the personal vendetta theory. Two of those sources said the individual being investigated was a U.S. citizen.

The pipe bomb explosion drew national attention because investigators initially interpreted it as terrorist retribution for the mistaken downing eight months earlier of an Iranian commercial jetliner by the Vincennes, an Aegis-class guided missile cruiser commanded by Rogers.

All 290 people aboard the plane died. Rogers' wife, Sharon, was alone in the van but got out uninjured moments before it was destroyed by fire at an intersection near the couple's home in San Diego, where the Vincennes is based.

Tom Hughes, FBI special agent in charge in San Diego, refused to discuss any aspect of the six-month probe. ``We will have the same position we have in any ongoing investigation,'' he said, ``and that is `no comment.'''

Rogers expressed surprise at the possibility of a personal motive in the attack, saying, ``I have not the remotest idea of anyone who would take a personal vendetta against me or my family.''

Here's a profile of William C. Rogers III. It mentions that the bombing of the van is still unsolved (as well as the fact that the case was shown on UM).

http://www.answers.com/topic/william-c-rogers-iii

When was this case featured on UM? I ask because of something I noticed in crystaldawn's first article. It refers to the date of the car bombing simply as March 10, but doesn't list the year. That means the article dates from later in 1989, the year of the car bombing. If the UM segment was produced and aired in 1990 or later, it should have mentioned the possibility of this "new" theory.

When was this case featured on UM?

During the 1992-93 season.

I agree with you Awsi Dooger. The article was from back in 1989 so UM should have definitely put the police theory in there that it was a personal vendetta. Correct me if I"m wrong but wasn't the entire episode or most of it dedicated to terrorism? If I remember correctly the "L'Enfant" segment was on the same episode as well. I guess the (probably more plausible) theory of an individual with an ax to grind with the captain didn't fit in with the whole "terrorism" angle they were going for so they just left it out. :rolleyes:

I agree with you Awsi Dooger. The article was from back in 1989 so UM should have definitely put the police theory in there that it was a personal vendetta. Correct me if I"m wrong but wasn't the entire episode or most of it dedicated to terrorism? If I remember correctly the "L'Enfant" segment was on the same episode as well. I guess the (probably more plausible) theory of an individual with an ax to grind with the captain didn't fit in with the whole "terrorism" angle they were going for so they just left it out. :rolleyes:

I certainly remember it as the terrorism episode. In the Vincennes segment they even focused on the aspect of the Arab guys in the car driving around asking about an Arab family in the neighborhood, with the obvious implication that family would be open to their inquiry about the captain and where he lived. Now I read in the article you linked that, "Two of those sources said the individual being investigated was a U.S. citizen."

This is a case where either scenario seems possible to me. I just don't understand why UM wouldn't mention the other police theory about a personal vendetta, even in passing, especially since we now know that aspect had been highlighted in the media years earlier. You're probably right, why interrupt a theme episode with an inconvenient alternate possibility?

It was most likely those two Iranian guys. They were probably relatives of the victims on the plane. Since they are in Iran, they will never be caught.

There is also the possibility that whoever bombed the van had nothing to do with the Vincennes. The chances of that are small, but I have to wonder if the FBI has been so focused on this having something to do with the Vincennes that something was missed. It could be a personal grudge against the captain, or even the wife.

First of all, Hey UM Board Friends, it's been a while. (cue Aaron Lewis)

Secondly, I have not been able to stop thinking about this segment. Although I've seen it several times before, I eventually came to realize that prior to UM, I had never heard of this story before. I considered that strange, seeing as I served in the U.S. military for over a decade and received many, many blocks of what we then called counter-terrorism training. Usually, these blocks of instruction would cite real examples of actual terrorist acts. There were always the usual suspects: the 1993 WTC bombing, Atlanta, Oklahoma City, the USS Cole. But there were often examples of other bombings with fewer victims per event, such as the Unabomber's acts, that were often included as part of the teaching material. In all those years, not once did I ever hear about the bombing of Sharon Rogers' van by suspected Iranian terrorists. One would have presumed that during my particular era of service, the so-called Global War on Terrorism, that this would have been presented as a textbook example of a terrorist act.

So I began to investigate a little further.

As crystaldawn hit on fifteen years ago in this thread, there WAS another lead in this case. It had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, but with an out-of-work civilian pilot (a Navy veteran, to boot), his acrimonious divorce, and an alleged extramarital affair between Will Rogers and a friend of this ex-Navy pilot's wife. And apparently, it helped lead investigators to eventually conclude that the car bombing was almost certainly not perpetrated by terrorists, but by someone who wanted to personally harm Will Rogers and/or his wife.

The story is a little confusing, but I'll attempt to break it down in a sensical way. All of this came from information I gleaned from the L.A. Times, which reported several times on the story between 1989 and 1991. (In fact, I got so interested that I actually ended up subscribing to the Times, which somehow offers a better deal than the Tennessean, Commercial Appeal, and News-Sentinel combined, but I digress):

At the time of the March 10, 1989 bombing of Sharon Rogers' van, George Marxmiller was a Georgia-based pilot who until recently had flown passenger jets for Eastern Airlines until he decided to honor a union strike. He was undergoing a very bitter divorce from his wife, Rebecca. After the bombing, Marxmiller contacted the FBI and relayed to them that in 1987, he had spent a weekend in Portland, OR with Rebecca's best friend (unnamed) and her lover--whom Marxmiller named as Will Rogers. Because Rogers was allegedly carrying on an extramarital affair, Marxmiller proposed that this could have been a motive for Rogers to kill his wife Sharon. Perhaps most intriguing, Rebecca Marxmiller named Will Rogers as a potential witness on her behalf in the couples' divorce proceeding.

The FBI became interested. Although Will Rogers strongly objected to being accused of infidelity and claimed that George Marxmiller's accusations were untrue, he did admit to having met both George and Rebecca Marxmiller on a previous occasion. Rogers never elaborated on the circumstance of this meeting, or when or where it actually took place, but he did not deny that it had occurred.

As the investigation proceeded, the FBI began to turn its attention on George Marxmiller himself. Two polygraphs administered to him during the summer of 1989 returned inconclusive results. For his part, Marxmiller provided an alibi for his whereabouts on March 9, which included a high school basketball game that he attended with his son and another Eastern Airlines pilot. According to the other pilot, Marxmiller's alibi could be substantiated until midnight on March 10, the day of the van bombing. Of course, this would have made it all but impossible for Marxmiller to have been the bomber.

However, the FBI soon discovered that Marxmiller's younger brother, Tom, lived in the Los Angeles area and that Marxmiller had visited him February 24-27 1989, just a couple of weeks before the bombing. Tom was contacted by the FBI and took a polygraph himself, but I haven't been able to find anything about the results of this test. Tom vehemently denied knowing anything or having anything to do with the bombing.

Rebecca Marxmiller claimed that George specifically told her that his entire reason for contacting the FBI in the first place was to discredit Rebecca's friend (named as a witness along with Will Rogers) in the upcoming divorce proceedings, and nothing more. Apparently, this is ultimately the conclusion to which the FBI came, and the Marxmiller lead was eventually abandoned. However, the final consensus on the investigation after it was shelved sometime in 1991 was that the act was probably fueled by a "personal grudge against Rogers or his family", and that the terrorism theory was "all but ruled out."



Some other stuff:

1. The articles make it abundantly clear that while the Rogers strongly denied any allegations of an extramarital affair on Will's part, the couple was very reluctant to comment beyond this denial. One article stated they began to refuse interviews, and could often not be reached for comment after Marxmiller's accusations broke. This would have been the summer and fall of 1989. The UM segment wasn't aired until 1993, over four years after the bombing. As you may recall, Sharon Rogers was insistent that she believed the bombing to be "a terrorist act", and the segment largely reflected that particular angle--even though the FBI itself had essentially ruled out that possibility years before.

2. Sharon Rogers was actually let go from her teaching job as a direct result of the bombing incident. Apparently, the headmaster at the private school where she had taught fourth grade for over a decade thought she would be putting students and faculty at risk as a supposed terrorist target, and up and fired her. Fortunately, she was able to secure another teaching position in the area not too long thereafter.


What to make of all this? Y'all tell me. I have some thoughts, but am eager to hear yours first.

First of all, Hey UM Board Friends, it's been a while. (cue Aaron Lewis)

Secondly, I have not been able to stop thinking about this segment. Although I've seen it several times before, I eventually came to realize that prior to UM, I had never heard of this story before. I considered that strange, seeing as I served in the U.S. military for over a decade and received many, many blocks of what we then called counter-terrorism training. Usually, these blocks of instruction would cite real examples of actual terrorist acts. There were always the usual suspects: the 1993 WTC bombing, Atlanta, Oklahoma City, the USS Cole. But there were often examples of other bombings with fewer victims per event, such as the Unabomber's acts, that were often included as part of the teaching material. In all those years, not once did I ever hear about the bombing of Sharon Rogers' van by suspected Iranian terrorists. One would have presumed that during my particular era of service, the so-called Global War on Terrorism, that this would have been presented as a textbook example of a terrorist act.

So I began to investigate a little further.

As crystaldawn hit on fifteen years ago in this thread, there WAS another lead in this case. It had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, but with an out-of-work civilian pilot (a Navy veteran, to boot), his acrimonious divorce, and an alleged extramarital affair between Will Rogers and a friend of this ex-Navy pilot's wife. And apparently, it helped lead investigators to eventually conclude that the car bombing was almost certainly not perpetrated by terrorists, but by someone who wanted to personally harm Will Rogers and/or his wife.

The story is a little confusing, but I'll attempt to break it down in a sensical way. All of this came from information I gleaned from the L.A. Times, which reported several times on the story between 1989 and 1991. (In fact, I got so interested that I actually ended up subscribing to the Times, which somehow offers a better deal than the Tennessean, Commercial Appeal, and News-Sentinel combined, but I digress):

At the time of the March 10, 1989 bombing of Sharon Rogers' van, George Marxmiller was a Georgia-based pilot who until recently had flown passenger jets for Eastern Airlines until he decided to honor a union strike. He was undergoing a very bitter divorce from his wife, Rebecca. After the bombing, Marxmiller contacted the FBI and relayed to them that in 1987, he had spent a weekend in Portland, OR with Rebecca's best friend (unnamed) and her lover--whom Marxmiller named as Will Rogers. Because Rogers was allegedly carrying on an extramarital affair, Marxmiller proposed that this could have been a motive for Rogers to kill his wife Sharon. Perhaps most intriguing, Rebecca Marxmiller named Will Rogers as a potential witness on her behalf in the couples' divorce proceeding.

The FBI became interested. Although Will Rogers strongly objected to being accused of infidelity and claimed that George Marxmiller's accusations were untrue, he did admit to having met both George and Rebecca Marxmiller on a previous occasion. Rogers never elaborated on the circumstance of this meeting, or when or where it actually took place, but he did not deny that it had occurred.

As the investigation proceeded, the FBI began to turn its attention on George Marxmiller himself. Two polygraphs administered to him during the summer of 1989 returned inconclusive results. For his part, Marxmiller provided an alibi for his whereabouts on March 9, which included a high school basketball game that he attended with his son and another Eastern Airlines pilot. According to the other pilot, Marxmiller's alibi could be substantiated until midnight on March 10, the day of the van bombing. Of course, this would have made it all but impossible for Marxmiller to have been the bomber.

However, the FBI soon discovered that Marxmiller's younger brother, Tom, lived in the Los Angeles area and that Marxmiller had visited him February 24-27 1989, just a couple of weeks before the bombing. Tom was contacted by the FBI and took a polygraph himself, but I haven't been able to find anything about the results of this test. Tom vehemently denied knowing anything or having anything to do with the bombing.

Rebecca Marxmiller claimed that George specifically told her that his entire reason for contacting the FBI in the first place was to discredit Rebecca's friend (named as a witness along with Will Rogers) in the upcoming divorce proceedings, and nothing more. Apparently, this is ultimately the conclusion to which the FBI came, and the Marxmiller lead was eventually abandoned. However, the final consensus on the investigation after it was shelved sometime in 1991 was that the act was probably fueled by a "personal grudge against Rogers or his family", and that the terrorism theory was "all but ruled out."



Some other stuff:

1. The articles make it abundantly clear that while the Rogers strongly denied any allegations of an extramarital affair on Will's part, the couple was very reluctant to comment beyond this denial. One article stated they began to refuse interviews, and could often not be reached for comment after Marxmiller's accusations broke. This would have been the summer and fall of 1989. The UM segment wasn't aired until 1993, over four years after the bombing. As you may recall, Sharon Rogers was insistent that she believed the bombing to be "a terrorist act", and the segment largely reflected that particular angle--even though the FBI itself had essentially ruled out that possibility years before.

2. Sharon Rogers was actually let go from her teaching job as a direct result of the bombing incident. Apparently, the headmaster at the private school where she had taught fourth grade for over a decade thought she would be putting students and faculty at risk as a supposed terrorist target, and up and fired her. Fortunately, she was able to secure another teaching position in the area not too long thereafter.


What to make of all this? Y'all tell me. I have some thoughts, but am eager to hear yours first.


Watching this as a 15 year old back in 1992, I totally bought the terrorist angle. I had family in the military so I knew about this stuff. When I watched this segment as I've gotten older, I think...huh?

Yeah, I could see revenge against Captain Rogers, but it seems that the Iranians (If that's who did it) were putting themselves at risk by making their presence known in the neighborhood. If they were going to bomb either the captain or his wife, I would think they could do more than a pipe bomb in a van. I don't how one of their bombs could fail like that one did. Yes, I think it was an amateur job because Sharon Rogers was actually able to escape.

Sharon Rogers being fired for being a victim of a crime seems a bit much. All this feels so amateur, from the bombing, the alleged stalking, Ms. Rogers firing.

Maybe it's just me.

It was most likely those two Iranian guys. They were probably relatives of the victims on the plane. Since they are in Iran, they will never be caught.

haha were you being sarcastic or serious? this is the take that I had from the segment when I first watched as a kid. As I kid I was struck by the garage visual. after watching that segment as a scared kid I thought, geez I would never ever park my car outside of my garage whether terrorists were following me or just from pure fear of watching that segment.

As an adult now I think....hmmm that's interesting. seems strange that the one time the cars are parked outside, a pipe bomb gets planted. that doesn't fit a terrorist angle. that highlights inside attack, someone very close to the Rogers' may have been involved

First of all, Hey UM Board Friends, it's been a while. (cue Aaron Lewis)

Secondly, I have not been able to stop thinking about this segment. Although I've seen it several times before, I eventually came to realize that prior to UM, I had never heard of this story before. I considered that strange, seeing as I served in the U.S. military for over a decade and received many, many blocks of what we then called counter-terrorism training. Usually, these blocks of instruction would cite real examples of actual terrorist acts. There were always the usual suspects: the 1993 WTC bombing, Atlanta, Oklahoma City, the USS Cole. But there were often examples of other bombings with fewer victims per event, such as the Unabomber's acts, that were often included as part of the teaching material. In all those years, not once did I ever hear about the bombing of Sharon Rogers' van by suspected Iranian terrorists. One would have presumed that during my particular era of service, the so-called Global War on Terrorism, that this would have been presented as a textbook example of a terrorist act.

So I began to investigate a little further.

As crystaldawn hit on fifteen years ago in this thread, there WAS another lead in this case. It had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, but with an out-of-work civilian pilot (a Navy veteran, to boot), his acrimonious divorce, and an alleged extramarital affair between Will Rogers and a friend of this ex-Navy pilot's wife. And apparently, it helped lead investigators to eventually conclude that the car bombing was almost certainly not perpetrated by terrorists, but by someone who wanted to personally harm Will Rogers and/or his wife.

The story is a little confusing, but I'll attempt to break it down in a sensical way. All of this came from information I gleaned from the L.A. Times, which reported several times on the story between 1989 and 1991. (In fact, I got so interested that I actually ended up subscribing to the Times, which somehow offers a better deal than the Tennessean, Commercial Appeal, and News-Sentinel combined, but I digress):

At the time of the March 10, 1989 bombing of Sharon Rogers' van, George Marxmiller was a Georgia-based pilot who until recently had flown passenger jets for Eastern Airlines until he decided to honor a union strike. He was undergoing a very bitter divorce from his wife, Rebecca. After the bombing, Marxmiller contacted the FBI and relayed to them that in 1987, he had spent a weekend in Portland, OR with Rebecca's best friend (unnamed) and her lover--whom Marxmiller named as Will Rogers. Because Rogers was allegedly carrying on an extramarital affair, Marxmiller proposed that this could have been a motive for Rogers to kill his wife Sharon. Perhaps most intriguing, Rebecca Marxmiller named Will Rogers as a potential witness on her behalf in the couples' divorce proceeding.

The FBI became interested. Although Will Rogers strongly objected to being accused of infidelity and claimed that George Marxmiller's accusations were untrue, he did admit to having met both George and Rebecca Marxmiller on a previous occasion. Rogers never elaborated on the circumstance of this meeting, or when or where it actually took place, but he did not deny that it had occurred.

As the investigation proceeded, the FBI began to turn its attention on George Marxmiller himself. Two polygraphs administered to him during the summer of 1989 returned inconclusive results. For his part, Marxmiller provided an alibi for his whereabouts on March 9, which included a high school basketball game that he attended with his son and another Eastern Airlines pilot. According to the other pilot, Marxmiller's alibi could be substantiated until midnight on March 10, the day of the van bombing. Of course, this would have made it all but impossible for Marxmiller to have been the bomber.

However, the FBI soon discovered that Marxmiller's younger brother, Tom, lived in the Los Angeles area and that Marxmiller had visited him February 24-27 1989, just a couple of weeks before the bombing. Tom was contacted by the FBI and took a polygraph himself, but I haven't been able to find anything about the results of this test. Tom vehemently denied knowing anything or having anything to do with the bombing.

Rebecca Marxmiller claimed that George specifically told her that his entire reason for contacting the FBI in the first place was to discredit Rebecca's friend (named as a witness along with Will Rogers) in the upcoming divorce proceedings, and nothing more. Apparently, this is ultimately the conclusion to which the FBI came, and the Marxmiller lead was eventually abandoned. However, the final consensus on the investigation after it was shelved sometime in 1991 was that the act was probably fueled by a "personal grudge against Rogers or his family", and that the terrorism theory was "all but ruled out."



Some other stuff:

1. The articles make it abundantly clear that while the Rogers strongly denied any allegations of an extramarital affair on Will's part, the couple was very reluctant to comment beyond this denial. One article stated they began to refuse interviews, and could often not be reached for comment after Marxmiller's accusations broke. This would have been the summer and fall of 1989. The UM segment wasn't aired until 1993, over four years after the bombing. As you may recall, Sharon Rogers was insistent that she believed the bombing to be "a terrorist act", and the segment largely reflected that particular angle--even though the FBI itself had essentially ruled out that possibility years before.

2. Sharon Rogers was actually let go from her teaching job as a direct result of the bombing incident. Apparently, the headmaster at the private school where she had taught fourth grade for over a decade thought she would be putting students and faculty at risk as a supposed terrorist target, and up and fired her. Fortunately, she was able to secure another teaching position in the area not too long thereafter.


What to make of all this? Y'all tell me. I have some thoughts, but am eager to hear yours first.

great post! there is a lot of information there that I never knew. this has really had me thinking all day and I've had to edit my comments several times to articulate my thoughts properly. I'm willing to speculate, but want to make clear I have little understanding of what actually happened in this case.

one follow up question that I have is when did the UM taping and interview with the rogers' occur vs. the rogers' knowing that the authorities had already ruled out terrorism related to the Vincennes mishap? Were the rogers' made aware that investigators had ruled out a terrorist retaliatory attack in 1989-1991 and years later they carried on with an UM segment that did not include the actual investigative data? I did notice after rewatching the FBI agent in the segment doesn’t say much, but he does say they need to follow up on the lead of the eye witness account to ID the 2 individuals in the bmw, because that’s one piece of the puzzle. Then he says they also need information from anyone else who had knowledge of the bomber.


After thinking more I've come to the conclusion that this was not likely a case of foreign terrorism. Was that a possibility? yes certainly a possible one. yet that is a convenient conclusion for sensationalism and/or for Rogers to use as a crutch. I hope that the latter is not the case. I hope it's just the initial fear of returning home after the accident and the threatening phone calls that were allegedly received. Clearly that rattled Sharon Rogers and convinced her that it was terrorism.

If Rogers exploited the accident to detract from his questionable personal affairs, then that is upsetting for me. maybe he is one of the most unlucky people on the planet that he was involved in two of the most unlikely catastrophic events that one can be involved with...

I also had to go through terrorism training, both formal training in which there was not a mention of this case or any other cases like it that I can recall that were tailored to specific military members at their stateside residence. but the terror attacks that you described, I've studied as well as the khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia where multiple USAF were killed. I think these type of attacks are speculated to be proxy attacks (by conspiracy angles) or in a more simple form, they are direct attacks committed by organized terrorist groups in retaliation to prior events like the Vincennes accident, or just anti-American/anti government attacks. I along with all of my peers, had to do a report on a major terrorist organization in order to gain the NCO rank. I also had some real world experience as I was an Air Force recruiter and we had to be aware of lone wolf attackers and vehicle tampering with our gov vehicles. One recruiter in my area was actually researched by a lone wolf attacker who ended up shooting at a recruiter station in Arkansas IIRC. My friend's recruiting station was made aware by authorities after they caught the attacker and looked at the attacker's computer that had his recruiting station info in it. Thankfully my friend was never harmed, but unfortunately a US service member was injured by this attacker.

Terrorists at different levels, like basic criminals, usually follow patterns to uncover a security weakness. If someone parks their car in the garage everyday, terrorists/criminals aren't going to go looking to plant a bomb in said car at the residence because the car is parked in the garage everyday. Planting a bomb on a car is not a spur of the moment thing. In this case, they would have looked at a different location to plant a bomb. You also would think that if a foreign entity who were responding directly to the Iranian airliner attack and were going to get even with Rogers at a personal level, that they would have taken responsibility for the attack, and made additional threats, but that never happened. it could explain larger attacks that came later in other places, where responsible groups took ownership with justification of wanting American presence out of the Middle East, but we may never know if those had anything to do with Vincennes directly. I think one could assume that though.

This has the earmark of an inside, premeditated, very personal and isolated attack. for me someone was somehow made aware that the car would be parked outside of the garage, or someone who knew them was actively following them at the time and the bomb planting culminated that evening. Those angles still don't make complete sense. it also doesn't make sense if W. Rogers drove the van to get breakfast that morning, before the bomb exploded later with Sharon. If anything that adds some suspicion towards Rogers for me, at the least to be checked up on. Rogers being a senior navy officer, seems very naive to expect people to believe his car park story as it relates to a terrorist attack. If there was enough evidence in the investigation for investigators to rule out terrorism and to classify it as a personal attack, then I wouldn't rule out that Rogers was thought of as a suspect. Given the circumstances and opportunity for him to be involved. Perhaps he was never publicly ID'd as a suspect due to the high vis of the case and lack of evidence. Will’s mannerisms in the interview are a little strange now when I watch. It’s interesting that he tells his reenactment of the scene by downplaying the bomb at first, and then it’s interesting that he says he wants whoever attempted to murder Sharon to be arrested when he also drove the van that morning. Maybe I’m making too much of that now.

I'm also interested in the Vincennes accident itself. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but don't want to speculate about it without more clear knowledge of what happened. Did Rogers or anyone else ever face any discipline? I wonder what the review of that investigation was like.

great post! there is a lot of information there that I never knew. this has really had me thinking all day and I've had to edit my comments several times to articulate my thoughts properly. I'm willing to speculate, but want to make clear I have little understanding of what actually happened in this case.

one follow up question that I have is when did the UM taping and interview with the rogers' occur vs. the rogers' knowing that the authorities had already ruled out terrorism related to the Vincennes mishap? Were the rogers' made aware that investigators had ruled out a terrorist retaliatory attack in 1989-1991 and years later they carried on with an UM segment that did not include the actual investigative data? I did notice after rewatching the FBI agent in the segment doesn’t say much, but he does say they need to follow up on the lead of the eye witness account to ID the 2 individuals in the bmw, because that’s one piece of the puzzle. Then he says they also need information from anyone else who had knowledge of the bomber.


After thinking more I've come to the conclusion that this was not likely a case of foreign terrorism. Was that a possibility? yes certainly a possible one. yet that is a convenient conclusion for sensationalism and/or for Rogers to use as a crutch. I hope that the latter is not the case. I hope it's just the initial fear of returning home after the accident and the threatening phone calls that were allegedly received. Clearly that rattled Sharon Rogers and convinced her that it was terrorism.

If Rogers exploited the accident to detract from his questionable personal affairs, then that is upsetting for me. maybe he is one of the most unlucky people on the planet that he was involved in two of the most unlikely catastrophic events that one can be involved with...

I also had to go through terrorism training, both formal training in which there was not a mention of this case or any other cases like it that I can recall that were tailored to specific military members at their stateside residence. but the terror attacks that you described, I've studied as well as the khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia where multiple USAF were killed. I think these type of attacks are speculated to be proxy attacks (by conspiracy angles) or in a more simple form, they are direct attacks committed by organized terrorist groups in retaliation to prior events like the Vincennes accident, or just anti-American/anti government attacks. I along with all of my peers, had to do a report on a major terrorist organization in order to gain the NCO rank. I also had some real world experience as I was an Air Force recruiter and we had to be aware of lone wolf attackers and vehicle tampering with our gov vehicles. One recruiter in my area was actually researched by a lone wolf attacker who ended up shooting at a recruiter station in Arkansas IIRC. My friend's recruiting station was made aware by authorities after they caught the attacker and looked at the attacker's computer that had his recruiting station info in it. Thankfully my friend was never harmed, but unfortunately a US service member was injured by this attacker.

Terrorists at different levels, like basic criminals, usually follow patterns to uncover a security weakness. If someone parks their car in the garage everyday, terrorists/criminals aren't going to go looking to plant a bomb in said car at the residence because the car is parked in the garage everyday. Planting a bomb on a car is not a spur of the moment thing. In this case, they would have looked at a different location to plant a bomb. You also would think that if a foreign entity who were responding directly to the Iranian airliner attack and were going to get even with Rogers at a personal level, that they would have taken responsibility for the attack, and made additional threats, but that never happened. it could explain larger attacks that came later in other places, where responsible groups took ownership with justification of wanting American presence out of the Middle East, but we may never know if those had anything to do with Vincennes directly. I think one could assume that though.

This has the earmark of an inside, premeditated, very personal and isolated attack. for me someone was somehow made aware that the car would be parked outside of the garage, or someone who knew them was actively following them at the time and the bomb planting culminated that evening. Those angles still don't make complete sense. it also doesn't make sense if W. Rogers drove the van to get breakfast that morning, before the bomb exploded later with Sharon. If anything that adds some suspicion towards Rogers for me, at the least to be checked up on. Rogers being a senior navy officer, seems very naive to expect people to believe his car park story as it relates to a terrorist attack. If there was enough evidence in the investigation for investigators to rule out terrorism and to classify it as a personal attack, then I wouldn't rule out that Rogers was thought of as a suspect. Given the circumstances and opportunity for him to be involved. Perhaps he was never publicly ID'd as a suspect due to the high vis of the case and lack of evidence. Will’s mannerisms in the interview are a little strange now when I watch. It’s interesting that he tells his reenactment of the scene by downplaying the bomb at first, and then it’s interesting that he says he wants whoever attempted to murder Sharon to be arrested when he also drove the van that morning. Maybe I’m making too much of that now.

I'm also interested in the Vincennes accident itself. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but don't want to speculate about it without more clear knowledge of what happened. Did Rogers or anyone else ever face any discipline? I wonder what the review of that investigation was like.

The fact he drove the van before to get pastries w/o incident was always weird to me, even as a kid. Of course, being younger, I thought it was nothing. However, at the very least you have to ask questions.

1. How did the pipe bomb NOT go off when he drove it and back? Was it set up to get to a certain speed? Maybe after a certain timeframe? How far was the bakery/supermarket he got the pastries? I just think pastries is a weird thing to go get during a work week when both were still employed, but maybe that's just me.

2. Did Will Rogers have an incentive for this? Was it to kill Sharon or just to get the heat off him for either what happened in the PG or this other personal incident where he may or may not have had an extramarital affair?

3. Did Sharon have an incentive? Maybe it was supposed to go off on Will by putting it in HIS car and it was put on her van by mistake? Maybe she didn't know he took the van to get pastries and assumed it would kill him in his vehicle when he went to work? Maybe it was set up to go off in her van but not kill her to bring attention to herself and/or get heat off Will?

4. Was it maybe a one off with a small group of Iranian terrorists not connected to the government who were pissed off over what happened? A group of amateurs?

So many questions and I don't know if we'll ever get the full answer.

Meg and Dallas— thank you both for the incredible write ups! It’s much appreciated. I’ve always been rather shocked that this case hasn’t been solved, considering the background of the involved parties. Makes me get a little tinfoil, lol.
One thing I have to say, though, and I feel badly saying it considering she’s a victim who narrowly escaped with her life, I found Sharon Rogers to be thoroughly unlikable from the get go.

I myself think the car bomb was a personal vendetta and not an act of terrorism.

The fact he drove the van before to get pastries w/o incident was always weird to me, even as a kid. Of course, being younger, I thought it was nothing. However, at the very least you have to ask questions.

1. How did the pipe bomb NOT go off when he drove it and back? Was it set up to get to a certain speed? Maybe after a certain timeframe? How far was the bakery/supermarket he got the pastries? I just think pastries is a weird thing to go get during a work week when both were still employed, but maybe that's just me.

2. Did Will Rogers have an incentive for this? Was it to kill Sharon or just to get the heat off him for either what happened in the PG or this other personal incident where he may or may not have had an extramarital affair?

3. Did Sharon have an incentive? Maybe it was supposed to go off on Will by putting it in HIS car and it was put on her van by mistake? Maybe she didn't know he took the van to get pastries and assumed it would kill him in his vehicle when he went to work? Maybe it was set up to go off in her van but not kill her to bring attention to herself and/or get heat off Will?

4. Was it maybe a one off with a small group of Iranian terrorists not connected to the government who were pissed off over what happened? A group of amateurs?

So many questions and I don't know if we'll ever get the full answer.

All good questions. The one time parking outside of the garage in several weeks/months is notable for me. That seems too good to be true. Also as you pointed out how did he drive the van with the bomb in it and why did it not explode. I don’t have that answer. I don’t know what Will’s motive would of been.

I think you raised good questions of his personal affairs and maybe spinning the PG accident around to him and Sharon being victims took some of the heat off of him. I don’t think Sharon had anything to do with it other than being a victim. I think she was rattled by the threats and the bombing as she should have been. Who was the intended target though? Was it just her or both?

For me the segment did not age well for the Rogers’. I know they were victims, definitely Sharon no doubt. But there was a major catastrophic accident where 290 innocent civilians died. The counter was that the Rogers’ alleged that a foreign terrorist attempted to murder them in retaliation. I just don’t think this is something that looks good on their part now especially how they closed the segment out. I would have opted out of something like that.

Yeah, I could see revenge against Captain Rogers, but it seems that the Iranians (If that's who did it) were putting themselves at risk by making their presence known in the neighborhood. If they were going to bomb either the captain or his wife, I would think they could do more than a pipe bomb in a van. I don't how one of their bombs could fail like that one did. Yes, I think it was an amateur job because Sharon Rogers was actually able to escape.

What seems odd to me, if this was indeed an act of terrorism, is that in 32 years no persons and/or parties have been suspected or definitively linked to it. Typically, and especially in organized terrorist networks, that's relatively easy for intelligence analysts to do. Furthermore, no persons and/or parties have ever publicly claimed responsibility for the bombing, which is of course a common tactic of terrorist organizations even if they DIDN'T actually do the thing they claim to have done.

ETA: I stand corrected! Apparently there was at least one phone call claiming responsibility for the act made about a week afterward to a Los Angeles radio station:

Local : Telephone Caller Claims He Blew Up Vincennes Captain’s Van
LAT ARCHIVES
MARCH 15, 1989 12 AM PT
FROM TIMES STAFF AND WIRE SERVICE REPORTS

A telephone caller who said he belonged to a pro-Iranian group claimed responsibility today for the bombing of a van driven by the wife of the captain of the cruiser Vincennes and threatened further attacks.

A spokesman at radio station KNX, a CBS affiliate, said the anonymous caller spoke with a thick Middle Eastern accent and identified himself as a member of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.

The caller said the group was responsible for last Friday’s bombing in San Diego, adding that it was in retaliation for the downing of an Iranian airliner last July by the Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser. All 290 people on board the Iran Air jet were killed.

Roger Nadel, KNX assistant news director, said the caller threatened further attacks on Capt. Will Rogers and his family as well as other U.S. servicemen.

The FBI said it was investigating the call.

Sharon Rogers being fired for being a victim of a crime seems a bit much. All this feels so amateur, from the bombing, the alleged stalking, Ms. Rogers firing.

Maybe it's just me.

Yeah, the firing was pretty messed up:

School Defends Ouster of Vincennes Skipper’s Wife
By RALPH FRAMMOLINO AND RICHARD A. SERRANO
MARCH 24, 1989 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

SAN DIEGO — Reacting defensively to a White House comment on their treatment of the wife of the skipper of the missile cruiser Vincennes, La Jolla Country Day School officials on Thursday stressed that they had to let the popular fourth-grade teacher go because they feared for the safety of their students.
Earlier Thursday, White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater told reporters during a routine press briefing in Washington that it was “very disturbing” that Sharon Rogers would be dismissed from the exclusive private school shortly after a suspected terrorist pipe bomb exploded under her van.

“I think everyone would agree that it’s very disturbing to have anyone have their job affected by something that happens to them through these kinds of outside forces,” said Fitzwater, who at first was reluctant to discuss Mrs. Rogers’ fate at the school.

“We have to do everything possible to prevent terrorism. We need to be understanding about individuals. But certainly this is a disturbing case,” said Fitzwater, adding that President Bush had “deep concern” for Mrs. Rogers and the “larger threat” the bombing attempt posed to all Americans.

Authorities probed the pipe-bombing of Sharon Rogers’ van March 10 as a possible terrorist reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner, by mistake, over the Persian Gulf last July. Her husband, Capt. Will Rogers III, gave the order for the Vincennes to fire on the plane.

Country Day Schoolmaster Timothy Burns on Thursday responded to the White House comments with his first public statements since announcing Mrs. Rogers’ dismissal March 16.

“We share Mr. Fitzwater’s concern about Mrs. Rogers and the recent events affecting her life,” Burns said in a prepared statement. “The bombing of her van was a shock for all of us and did indeed present a disturbing case that our school had to address. The decision that Mrs. Rogers would not return to the La Jolla Country Day School campus was based on the ‘larger threat’ discussed by Mr. Fitzwater.

‘Main Concern’

“The protection of children’s lives is our main concern,” Burns said. “The van she was driving on March 10 would have arrived at our school in five minutes.”

The school, spread over 24 acres in the heart of the affluent Golden Triangle section of La Jolla, is considered one of the San Diego area’s top private academic institutions, even equipped with its own observatory and 16-inch telescope.

Officials said there traditionally is a long waiting list for parents to enroll their children in the 700-student school where tuition runs about $6,000 per year.

A school official who asked not to be identified told The Times on Thursday that there was another consideration leading to Rogers’ dismissal. The official said both the Naval Investigative Service and the FBI declined to provide protection for the school for as long as the school thought necessary.

The school has hired a public relations consultant to handle “damage control” by arranging a series of meetings next week between reporters and school officials to get the Country Day side of the story out.

Meanwhile, The Times has also learned that Mrs. Rogers continues to consult with the substitute teacher who has taken over her fourth-grade class, and sends in lesson plans for her former students.

The hiring of a public relations expert comes as the school is increasingly the target of criticism and bad publicity locally after revelations this week that Mrs. Rogers’ intended to return to her classroom but was “terminated” by the La Jolla school.

Radio station XTRA said in an editorial Wednesday and Thursday: “Shame on you, La Jolla Country Day! Shame on you for not supporting your fine teacher Mrs. Rogers in her time of need. Your callous treatment of the Rogers family in the name of concern for the children of La Jolla Country Day was just plain wrong and a public relations nightmare.”

Outspoken callers to its morning talk show were running 80% opposed to how Country Day administrators handled the problem, station spokesmen said.

On Wednesday night, KFMB-TV Channel 8 sponsored a telephone poll that showed 77% of its callers objected to Mrs. Rogers’ dismissal. In a heavy response to the pop poll, 3,091 callers responded to the question: “Do you feel Sharon Rogers should have been dismissed from her teaching job?”

New Assignment

In another development Thursday, Navy officials said that Capt. Rogers would leave the helm of the Vincennes in mid-May in a “routine shift” for a new assignment as commander of the Tactical Training Group on Pt. Loma.

Navy Chief Petty Officer Craig Huebler said there was no connection between the new assignment and the bombing of Sharon Rogers’ van. “He was already scheduled to get this change,” Huebler said. “This had nothing to do with what happened here.”

David Lauter in Washington and Leonard Bernstein in San Diego contributed to this story.

great post! there is a lot of information there that I never knew. this has really had me thinking all day and I've had to edit my comments several times to articulate my thoughts properly. I'm willing to speculate, but want to make clear I have little understanding of what actually happened in this case.

one follow up question that I have is when did the UM taping and interview with the rogers' occur vs. the rogers' knowing that the authorities had already ruled out terrorism related to the Vincennes mishap? Were the rogers' made aware that investigators had ruled out a terrorist retaliatory attack in 1989-1991 and years later they carried on with an UM segment that did not include the actual investigative data? I did notice after rewatching the FBI agent in the segment doesn’t say much, but he does say they need to follow up on the lead of the eye witness account to ID the 2 individuals in the bmw, because that’s one piece of the puzzle. Then he says they also need information from anyone else who had knowledge of the bomber.

The segment aired on the February 17, 1993 episode, right after the infamous L'Enfant segment as part of an exploration into "terrorism on U.S. soil" (or at least I think that's how Robert Stack set it up). The episode then takes a totally different turn after the Rogers segment when it's followed up with the Phillip-Macri-looking-for-woman-who-rescued-him-from-drowning story, which I thought was kind of weird.

I've thought about the story about the two men in the BMW quite a bit over the past few days. I would be interested to know if anyone else in the neighborhood reported seeing them, or if only one person or couple reported seeing and/or interacting with them. Although I don't have any reason to strongly suspect this is the case, I considered the possibility that the neighbors were lying. A detail about the so-called "unusual color" of the BMW (bronzette beige, to be exact! Which is a cool name, lol) seems awfully specific, though.


After thinking more I've come to the conclusion that this was not likely a case of foreign terrorism. Was that a possibility? yes certainly a possible one. yet that is a convenient conclusion for sensationalism and/or for Rogers to use as a crutch. I hope that the latter is not the case. I hope it's just the initial fear of returning home after the accident and the threatening phone calls that were allegedly received. Clearly that rattled Sharon Rogers and convinced her that it was terrorism.

If Rogers exploited the accident to detract from his questionable personal affairs, then that is upsetting for me. maybe he is one of the most unlucky people on the planet that he was involved in two of the most unlikely catastrophic events that one can be involved with...

I considered this, too. It's certainly possible.

I also had to go through terrorism training, both formal training in which there was not a mention of this case or any other cases like it that I can recall that were tailored to specific military members at their stateside residence. but the terror attacks that you described, I've studied as well as the khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia where multiple USAF were killed. I think these type of attacks are speculated to be proxy attacks (by conspiracy angles) or in a more simple form, they are direct attacks committed by organized terrorist groups in retaliation to prior events like the Vincennes accident, or just anti-American/anti government attacks. I along with all of my peers, had to do a report on a major terrorist organization in order to gain the NCO rank. I also had some real world experience as I was an Air Force recruiter and we had to be aware of lone wolf attackers and vehicle tampering with our gov vehicles. One recruiter in my area was actually researched by a lone wolf attacker who ended up shooting at a recruiter station in Arkansas IIRC. My friend's recruiting station was made aware by authorities after they caught the attacker and looked at the attacker's computer that had his recruiting station info in it. Thankfully my friend was never harmed, but unfortunately a US service member was injured by this attacker.

YIKES. We had a shooting an hour south in Chattanooga six years ago by a lone wolf assassin at a Navy recruiting station. The only Marine that survived was awarded a Purple Heart. I was still in the Reserve and I remember we tightened up security pretty heavily on the building during that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chattanooga_shootings

Terrorists at different levels, like basic criminals, usually follow patterns to uncover a security weakness. If someone parks their car in the garage everyday, terrorists/criminals aren't going to go looking to plant a bomb in said car at the residence because the car is parked in the garage everyday. Planting a bomb on a car is not a spur of the moment thing. In this case, they would have looked at a different location to plant a bomb. You also would think that if a foreign entity who were responding directly to the Iranian airliner attack and were going to get even with Rogers at a personal level, that they would have taken responsibility for the attack, and made additional threats, but that never happened. it could explain larger attacks that came later in other places, where responsible groups took ownership with justification of wanting American presence out of the Middle East, but we may never know if those had anything to do with Vincennes directly. I think one could assume that though.

This has the earmark of an inside, premeditated, very personal and isolated attack. for me someone was somehow made aware that the car would be parked outside of the garage, or someone who knew them was actively following them at the time and the bomb planting culminated that evening. Those angles still don't make complete sense. it also doesn't make sense if W. Rogers drove the van to get breakfast that morning, before the bomb exploded later with Sharon. If anything that adds some suspicion towards Rogers for me, at the least to be checked up on. Rogers being a senior navy officer, seems very naive to expect people to believe his car park story as it relates to a terrorist attack. If there was enough evidence in the investigation for investigators to rule out terrorism and to classify it as a personal attack, then I wouldn't rule out that Rogers was thought of as a suspect. Given the circumstances and opportunity for him to be involved. Perhaps he was never publicly ID'd as a suspect due to the high vis of the case and lack of evidence. Will’s mannerisms in the interview are a little strange now when I watch. It’s interesting that he tells his reenactment of the scene by downplaying the bomb at first, and then it’s interesting that he says he wants whoever attempted to murder Sharon to be arrested when he also drove the van that morning. Maybe I’m making too much of that now.

Yes, the fact that Capt. Rogers drove the van seemingly without incident seems very strange, as does everything you articulated here. In the articles that I read about the case, the authors give the impression that the FBI ruled out Will as a suspect VERY early in the investigation. I suspected, as you did, that the reason this seems to be the case was due to Rogers' position, rank, and the prior event with the Vincennes.

I'm also interested in the Vincennes accident itself. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but don't want to speculate about it without more clear knowledge of what happened. Did Rogers or anyone else ever face any discipline? I wonder what the review of that investigation was like.

It seems the DOD investigated the incident shortly after it occurred in 1988 and Rogers was cleared. In fact, he was awarded a Legion of Merit when he handed over command of the Vincennes in May 1989:

Rogers Reassigned to Shore Duty : Military Honors Vincennes Captain
By JANE FRITSCH
MAY 28, 1989 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITER

Capt. Will C. Rogers III was awarded the Legion of Merit, a top military honor, on Saturday as he stepped down from command of the Vincennes.

Rogers was given the award for his performance as commanding officer of the guided-missile cruiser, which became the focus of international controversy last July when it mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 people aboard.

He has been reassigned to shore duty at the Point Loma Tactical Development and Training Group in what Navy officials describe as a routine transfer.

Speaking from the deck of the Vincennes, Rogers paid special tribute to his wife, Sharon, who narrowly escaped death in March when a suspected terrorist bomb destroyed her van as she was driving to her teaching job at an exclusive private school in La Jolla.

ADVERTISING

“She literally rode the fireball out of the vehicle, sprinted to the curb, combed the shrapnel from her hair and asked a construction worker to call and inform me that she had experienced a minor mechanical difficulty,” Rogers said.

“When I arrived, she was most concerned, as her lesson plans were in flames and she was going to be late for school.”

His wife, who was seated among 500 spectators on the pier next to the ship, drew a standing ovation from the crowd as she accepted a bouquet of red roses from the Navy.

She was fired by administrators of the exclusive La Jolla Country Day School, who feared that her presence posed a security threat to the children. She has since reached a $135,000 financial settlement with the school.

Among the guests were a number of children from the fourth-grade class Sharon Rogers taught at the La Jolla Country Day School. Giggling and smiling, the children gathered around her before the ceremony.

The ceremony took place amid unusually tight security Saturday. Only invited guests were allowed on the base and all had to pass through two security checks and a metal detector. The Rogerses remain under the constant protection of the Naval Investigative Service.

Capt. Rogers was presented with a letter saying that while on duty in the Persian Gulf, his “tactical skills and calm direction enabled his crew to successfully engage seven heavily armed high-speed Iranian surface craft” attacking the Vincennes in “confined and confused waters. As a result, five craft were destroyed and two retreated.”

The letter made no mention of the Iranian airliner, which Rogers ordered shot down that day in the mistaken belief that it was an Iranian fighter plane. Rogers and his crew were cleared of any responsibility for the mistake in a Defense Department investigation last year.

I found this to be a pretty good layout of the events surrounding the actual Vincennes incident, if you have a few minutes:

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-020/h-020-1-uss-vincennes-tragedy--.html

The fact he drove the van before to get pastries w/o incident was always weird to me, even as a kid. Of course, being younger, I thought it was nothing. However, at the very least you have to ask questions.

1. How did the pipe bomb NOT go off when he drove it and back? Was it set up to get to a certain speed? Maybe after a certain timeframe? How far was the bakery/supermarket he got the pastries? I just think pastries is a weird thing to go get during a work week when both were still employed, but maybe that's just me.

2. Did Will Rogers have an incentive for this? Was it to kill Sharon or just to get the heat off him for either what happened in the PG or this other personal incident where he may or may not have had an extramarital affair?

3. Did Sharon have an incentive? Maybe it was supposed to go off on Will by putting it in HIS car and it was put on her van by mistake? Maybe she didn't know he took the van to get pastries and assumed it would kill him in his vehicle when he went to work? Maybe it was set up to go off in her van but not kill her to bring attention to herself and/or get heat off Will?

4. Was it maybe a one off with a small group of Iranian terrorists not connected to the government who were pissed off over what happened? A group of amateurs?

So many questions and I don't know if we'll ever get the full answer.

Agreed with DALLAS that these are all great questions. That this case seems so cut-and-dried on the surface if one watches the UM segment alone when it's actually VERY convoluted beneath that layer is incredibly fascinating to me. I have no experience whatsoever with podcasting, but if I was going to create one, this is definitely the case I would choose.

Interesting tidbit: just a month after the Iranian Airbus incident, the Vincennes actually rescued some Iranian fishermen who had been adrift at sea for over a week. A month later, after leaving the Persian Gulf, it rescued over 20 Vietnamese refugees from a sinking boat just moments before it broke apart:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-08-09-mn-231-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-09-23-mn-2812-story.html

These kind of events happen somewhat frequently with surface Navy vessels, but it makes one wonder if the Navy's public affairs office was just really eager to alert the SoCal media to some good press.

The ops officer aboard the Vincennes ultimately ate it for the event, which is rather astonishing, frankly. A part of me, however, isn't particularly surprised--especially regarding Capt. Rogers' escape from liability in any of it.

Not throwing any shade to any swabbies out there, but I've always thought Navy officers, especially O-6s and up, are truly the untouchables of the U.S. armed forces:

1 Vincennes Officer May Be Disciplined in Disaster
LAT ARCHIVES
AUG. 14, 1988 12 AM PT
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON — Top military officials reviewing the downing of an Iranian passenger jet by the Vincennes have recommended no disciplinary action against any officer involved in the incident other than the ship’s operations officer, Pentagon officials said Saturday.
A Navy board considered and rejected recommending action against officers as high as Rear Adm. Anthony A. Less, commander of the Persian Gulf naval task force, of which the Vincennes was part.

In a 1,000-page report that will be presented to Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci this week, military officials said Saturday, the board places most of the blame on the operations officer for his role in misinterpreting information which resulted in the cruiser mistakenly shooting down the jetliner on July 3, killing all 290 people aboard.

A report now being reviewed by Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommends a letter of reprimand to the operations officer, which would not become part of his official personnel file, officials said. The name of the officer has not been disclosed by the Navy.

ADVERTISING

The report was compiled by an investigative team headed by Rear Adm. William N. Fogarty and given to Marine Gen. George B. Crist, head of the Central Command, which controls the Persian Gulf region for review. It was then forwarded to Crowe, who has been reading it this weekend and could recommend lesser or greater disciplinary measures, officials said.

By the time an unclassified version of the report is made public, it may have been changed during this complicated review process, Pentagon officials said. But they added that there is little inclination among high officials to take a hard line against anybody from Less, who was in the gulf on his flagship, the Coronado, at the time of the shoot-down, to the sailors who misinterpreted data displayed on their consoles on the high-tech cruiser.

The general conclusion of the report is that a series of human errors led to the misidentification of the Iranian jetliner and that there was no significant malfunction in the performance of the Vincennes’ high-technology Aegis radar-tracking and identification systems, according to officials.

Still to be explained is how the high-tech equipment on the Vincennes could have been misinterpreted.

Agreed with DALLAS that these are all great questions. That this case seems so cut-and-dried on the surface if one watches the UM segment alone when it's actually VERY convoluted beneath that layer is incredibly fascinating to me. I have no experience whatsoever with podcasting, but if I was going to create one, this is definitely the case I would choose.

I was actually thinking that too about the podcast. It’s hard to post all of my thoughts on this case and this could go on for a couple hours. Crazy thing is I hadn’t really thought much about the van bombing investigation before you posted. The only thoughts that I had were wonders about the original accident in the Persian gulf. Now my wheels are turning.

What seems odd to me, if this was indeed an act of terrorism, is that in 32 years no persons and/or parties have been suspected or definitively linked to it. Typically, and especially in organized terrorist networks, that's relatively easy for intelligence analysts to do. Furthermore, no persons and/or parties have ever publicly claimed responsibility for the bombing, which is of course a common tactic of terrorist organizations even if they DIDN'T actually do the thing they claim to have done.

ETA: I stand corrected! Apparently there was at least one phone call claiming responsibility for the act made about a week afterward to a Los Angeles radio station:

Local : Telephone Caller Claims He Blew Up Vincennes Captain’s Van
LAT ARCHIVES
MARCH 15, 1989 12 AM PT
FROM TIMES STAFF AND WIRE SERVICE REPORTS

A telephone caller who said he belonged to a pro-Iranian group claimed responsibility today for the bombing of a van driven by the wife of the captain of the cruiser Vincennes and threatened further attacks.

A spokesman at radio station KNX, a CBS affiliate, said the anonymous caller spoke with a thick Middle Eastern accent and identified himself as a member of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.

The caller said the group was responsible for last Friday’s bombing in San Diego, adding that it was in retaliation for the downing of an Iranian airliner last July by the Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser. All 290 people on board the Iran Air jet were killed.

Roger Nadel, KNX assistant news director, said the caller threatened further attacks on Capt. Will Rogers and his family as well as other U.S. servicemen.

The FBI said it was investigating the call.



Yeah, the firing was pretty messed up:

School Defends Ouster of Vincennes Skipper’s Wife
By RALPH FRAMMOLINO AND RICHARD A. SERRANO
MARCH 24, 1989 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

SAN DIEGO — Reacting defensively to a White House comment on their treatment of the wife of the skipper of the missile cruiser Vincennes, La Jolla Country Day School officials on Thursday stressed that they had to let the popular fourth-grade teacher go because they feared for the safety of their students.
Earlier Thursday, White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater told reporters during a routine press briefing in Washington that it was “very disturbing” that Sharon Rogers would be dismissed from the exclusive private school shortly after a suspected terrorist pipe bomb exploded under her van.

“I think everyone would agree that it’s very disturbing to have anyone have their job affected by something that happens to them through these kinds of outside forces,” said Fitzwater, who at first was reluctant to discuss Mrs. Rogers’ fate at the school.

“We have to do everything possible to prevent terrorism. We need to be understanding about individuals. But certainly this is a disturbing case,” said Fitzwater, adding that President Bush had “deep concern” for Mrs. Rogers and the “larger threat” the bombing attempt posed to all Americans.

Authorities probed the pipe-bombing of Sharon Rogers’ van March 10 as a possible terrorist reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner, by mistake, over the Persian Gulf last July. Her husband, Capt. Will Rogers III, gave the order for the Vincennes to fire on the plane.

Country Day Schoolmaster Timothy Burns on Thursday responded to the White House comments with his first public statements since announcing Mrs. Rogers’ dismissal March 16.

“We share Mr. Fitzwater’s concern about Mrs. Rogers and the recent events affecting her life,” Burns said in a prepared statement. “The bombing of her van was a shock for all of us and did indeed present a disturbing case that our school had to address. The decision that Mrs. Rogers would not return to the La Jolla Country Day School campus was based on the ‘larger threat’ discussed by Mr. Fitzwater.

‘Main Concern’

“The protection of children’s lives is our main concern,” Burns said. “The van she was driving on March 10 would have arrived at our school in five minutes.”

The school, spread over 24 acres in the heart of the affluent Golden Triangle section of La Jolla, is considered one of the San Diego area’s top private academic institutions, even equipped with its own observatory and 16-inch telescope.

Officials said there traditionally is a long waiting list for parents to enroll their children in the 700-student school where tuition runs about $6,000 per year.

A school official who asked not to be identified told The Times on Thursday that there was another consideration leading to Rogers’ dismissal. The official said both the Naval Investigative Service and the FBI declined to provide protection for the school for as long as the school thought necessary.

The school has hired a public relations consultant to handle “damage control” by arranging a series of meetings next week between reporters and school officials to get the Country Day side of the story out.

Meanwhile, The Times has also learned that Mrs. Rogers continues to consult with the substitute teacher who has taken over her fourth-grade class, and sends in lesson plans for her former students.

The hiring of a public relations expert comes as the school is increasingly the target of criticism and bad publicity locally after revelations this week that Mrs. Rogers’ intended to return to her classroom but was “terminated” by the La Jolla school.

Radio station XTRA said in an editorial Wednesday and Thursday: “Shame on you, La Jolla Country Day! Shame on you for not supporting your fine teacher Mrs. Rogers in her time of need. Your callous treatment of the Rogers family in the name of concern for the children of La Jolla Country Day was just plain wrong and a public relations nightmare.”

Outspoken callers to its morning talk show were running 80% opposed to how Country Day administrators handled the problem, station spokesmen said.

On Wednesday night, KFMB-TV Channel 8 sponsored a telephone poll that showed 77% of its callers objected to Mrs. Rogers’ dismissal. In a heavy response to the pop poll, 3,091 callers responded to the question: “Do you feel Sharon Rogers should have been dismissed from her teaching job?”

New Assignment

In another development Thursday, Navy officials said that Capt. Rogers would leave the helm of the Vincennes in mid-May in a “routine shift” for a new assignment as commander of the Tactical Training Group on Pt. Loma.

Navy Chief Petty Officer Craig Huebler said there was no connection between the new assignment and the bombing of Sharon Rogers’ van. “He was already scheduled to get this change,” Huebler said. “This had nothing to do with what happened here.”

David Lauter in Washington and Leonard Bernstein in San Diego contributed to this story.



Well ok, there it is. I didn't know that either. I wonder if the FBI were able to discredit the claim. It appears that guardians of the IR made other claims as well that were either discredited or not proven. Including the PanAm airliner bombing. multiple organizations took credit for that bombing or were accused. It appears Libyan backed groups were the most likely culprits for that attack.

If you go on wikipedia and put in guardians of the Islamic Revolution, it will take you to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is modern day branch of the Iranian military. They actually recently accidentally shot down a Ukranian airliner. so there's that too...

The ops officer aboard the Vincennes ultimately ate it for the event, which is rather astonishing, frankly. A part of me, however, isn't particularly surprised--especially regarding Capt. Rogers' escape from liability in any of it.

Not throwing any shade to any swabbies out there, but I've always thought Navy officers, especially O-6s and up, are truly the untouchables of the U.S. armed forces:

1 Vincennes Officer May Be Disciplined in Disaster
LAT ARCHIVES
AUG. 14, 1988 12 AM PT
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON — Top military officials reviewing the downing of an Iranian passenger jet by the Vincennes have recommended no disciplinary action against any officer involved in the incident other than the ship’s operations officer, Pentagon officials said Saturday.
A Navy board considered and rejected recommending action against officers as high as Rear Adm. Anthony A. Less, commander of the Persian Gulf naval task force, of which the Vincennes was part.

In a 1,000-page report that will be presented to Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci this week, military officials said Saturday, the board places most of the blame on the operations officer for his role in misinterpreting information which resulted in the cruiser mistakenly shooting down the jetliner on July 3, killing all 290 people aboard.

A report now being reviewed by Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommends a letter of reprimand to the operations officer, which would not become part of his official personnel file, officials said. The name of the officer has not been disclosed by the Navy.

ADVERTISING

The report was compiled by an investigative team headed by Rear Adm. William N. Fogarty and given to Marine Gen. George B. Crist, head of the Central Command, which controls the Persian Gulf region for review. It was then forwarded to Crowe, who has been reading it this weekend and could recommend lesser or greater disciplinary measures, officials said.

By the time an unclassified version of the report is made public, it may have been changed during this complicated review process, Pentagon officials said. But they added that there is little inclination among high officials to take a hard line against anybody from Less, who was in the gulf on his flagship, the Coronado, at the time of the shoot-down, to the sailors who misinterpreted data displayed on their consoles on the high-tech cruiser.

The general conclusion of the report is that a series of human errors led to the misidentification of the Iranian jetliner and that there was no significant malfunction in the performance of the Vincennes’ high-technology Aegis radar-tracking and identification systems, according to officials.

Still to be explained is how the high-tech equipment on the Vincennes could have been misinterpreted.

interesting. you would think that the captain and other key leaders would be held to a similar standard as the subordinate officer. I wonder what that reprimand did to that officer's career. I'm going to read the history.navy.mil link you posted as soon as I can. thanks!

The segment aired on the February 17, 1993 episode, right after the infamous L'Enfant segment as part of an exploration into "terrorism on U.S. soil" (or at least I think that's how Robert Stack set it up). The episode then takes a totally different turn after the Rogers segment when it's followed up with the Phillip-Macri-looking-for-woman-who-rescued-him-from-drowning story, which I thought was kind of weird.

I've thought about the story about the two men in the BMW quite a bit over the past few days. I would be interested to know if anyone else in the neighborhood reported seeing them, or if only one person or couple reported seeing and/or interacting with them. Although I don't have any reason to strongly suspect this is the case, I considered the possibility that the neighbors were lying. A detail about the so-called "unusual color" of the BMW (bronzette beige, to be exact! Which is a cool name, lol) seems awfully specific, though.




I considered this, too. It's certainly possible.



YIKES. We had a shooting an hour south in Chattanooga six years ago by a lone wolf assassin at a Navy recruiting station. The only Marine that survived was awarded a Purple Heart. I was still in the Reserve and I remember we tightened up security pretty heavily on the building during that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chattanooga_shootings



Yes, the fact that Capt. Rogers drove the van seemingly without incident seems very strange, as does everything you articulated here. In the articles that I read about the case, the authors give the impression that the FBI ruled out Will as a suspect VERY early in the investigation. I suspected, as you did, that the reason this seems to be the case was due to Rogers' position, rank, and the prior event with the Vincennes.



It seems the DOD investigated the incident shortly after it occurred in 1988 and Rogers was cleared. In fact, he was awarded a Legion of Merit when he handed over command of the Vincennes in May 1989:

Rogers Reassigned to Shore Duty : Military Honors Vincennes Captain
By JANE FRITSCH
MAY 28, 1989 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITER

Capt. Will C. Rogers III was awarded the Legion of Merit, a top military honor, on Saturday as he stepped down from command of the Vincennes.

Rogers was given the award for his performance as commanding officer of the guided-missile cruiser, which became the focus of international controversy last July when it mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 people aboard.

He has been reassigned to shore duty at the Point Loma Tactical Development and Training Group in what Navy officials describe as a routine transfer.

Speaking from the deck of the Vincennes, Rogers paid special tribute to his wife, Sharon, who narrowly escaped death in March when a suspected terrorist bomb destroyed her van as she was driving to her teaching job at an exclusive private school in La Jolla.

ADVERTISING

“She literally rode the fireball out of the vehicle, sprinted to the curb, combed the shrapnel from her hair and asked a construction worker to call and inform me that she had experienced a minor mechanical difficulty,” Rogers said.

“When I arrived, she was most concerned, as her lesson plans were in flames and she was going to be late for school.”

His wife, who was seated among 500 spectators on the pier next to the ship, drew a standing ovation from the crowd as she accepted a bouquet of red roses from the Navy.

She was fired by administrators of the exclusive La Jolla Country Day School, who feared that her presence posed a security threat to the children. She has since reached a $135,000 financial settlement with the school.

Among the guests were a number of children from the fourth-grade class Sharon Rogers taught at the La Jolla Country Day School. Giggling and smiling, the children gathered around her before the ceremony.

The ceremony took place amid unusually tight security Saturday. Only invited guests were allowed on the base and all had to pass through two security checks and a metal detector. The Rogerses remain under the constant protection of the Naval Investigative Service.

Capt. Rogers was presented with a letter saying that while on duty in the Persian Gulf, his “tactical skills and calm direction enabled his crew to successfully engage seven heavily armed high-speed Iranian surface craft” attacking the Vincennes in “confined and confused waters. As a result, five craft were destroyed and two retreated.”

The letter made no mention of the Iranian airliner, which Rogers ordered shot down that day in the mistaken belief that it was an Iranian fighter plane. Rogers and his crew were cleared of any responsibility for the mistake in a Defense Department investigation last year.

I found this to be a pretty good layout of the events surrounding the actual Vincennes incident, if you have a few minutes:

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-020/h-020-1-uss-vincennes-tragedy--.html

So I finally read the article that you posted from history.navy.mil

it was the most informative that I have seen to date. and it looks to be the most accurate explanation as well that I would take to heart as being truth. IFF is an aircraft communication system that is actually relatively simple and reliable. It is most vital for Air Traffic Controllers to have a constant visual on aircraft in their Area of Responsibilty.

Just spitballing, but it is possible with the onboard technology being new to the sailors who were using it, that they were in over their heads in this situation where they perceived a real world threat that did not exist. Perhaps they did not have enough experience to interpret the data that they were reading as to give their commanding officer the correct information to make a proper decision. With that, he still could have made a different decision if he had reason to question the intel that he was given. Beyond that I have a lot of Monday morning QB thoughts on this one and could go on for a long time, but for me the most alarming fact that I learned from the article is that Capt Rogers went into Iranian territory without clearance (if I read that correctly). I think I would be in the camp with the Navy people who thought Capt Rogers actions were questionable. It doesn't make him guilty of a crime, but it raises some red flags with his decision making that perhaps require further investigation. Again, just an opinion not so much as to accuse him of any crime.

Has it ever been established why the Iranian aircraft did not simply respond to requests to identify itself? Had they done so, the entire incident is avoided.

Has it ever been established why the Iranian aircraft did not simply respond to requests to identify itself? Had they done so, the entire incident is avoided.
Yes Iranian aircraft, but they were civilian. Possibly it would have been avoided but for me it should not have gone that far. It’s also noteworthy that the Vincennes and another vessel had knowledge that the aircraft was ascending into a civilian flight path and this was observed correctly by another US Vessel but was mishandled by the Vincennes.

It’s unknown whether the civilian aircrew heard the transmissions. That is a very short flight, my guess is that they were over task saturated with radio transmissions and flight management. Also keep in mind that it would be unusual for a civilian airliner to communicate with a foreign naval vessel.

Meg! Amazing work with all the research you did!

One thing that bothers me is, why did UM continue on with the terrorist angle when they had to have known that FBI all but ruled out that possibility? I get the whole conspiracy/terrorist angle was probably a huge draw, but you're doing a huge injustice to finding out who was actually responsible.

I'm not accusing anyone, nor do I have any idea what actually happened, but just imagine the crap storm it would have been for the United States government and the Navy if Will Rogers had something to do with the car bombing on the heels of the situation he was involved in with the US Vincennes.