Possible lead in Navy Captain's wife car bombing

[crystaldawn]

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.''

[Kane]

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

[Awsi Dooger]

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.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by Awsi Dooger

When was this case featured on UM?

During the 1992-93 season.

[crystaldawn]

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.

[Awsi Dooger]

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

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.

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?

[george ramos]

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.

[mphs95]

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[mphs95]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

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.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by george ramos

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

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

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.

[mphs95]

Originally Posted by DALLASTEXAN!!

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.

[Ms Nevenka]

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.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by mphs95

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.