Charlie Rogers reported that three men broke into her home, carved hate slurs into her flesh and set her house on fire.
Statement Analysis said she was lying.
The public responded by, en masse, donating money, holding vigils, and getting tattoos in support of Ms. Rogers.
Eventually, she was arrested, charged, and pled "no contest" and awaits sentencing, which as been postponed until April 18th, 2013.
******************************************************************************
 |
Alleged victim of horrific assault |
here is an analysis post from last year...we covered her statements extensively including her 911 call.
As requested: Below is the full transcript of the interview given by Charlie Rogers.
Please note that in the news stories that carried this case, media left out some critical sentences from their text.
Charlie Rogers reported to police that she was the victim of a "hate crime" in which three masked men entered her home, assaulted her, tied her up, and carved slurs into her flesh. She reported that then they spray painted slurs in her basement, poured gasoline around the house, and lit it in fire, making this crime attempted murder. She reportedly escaped, ran naked to a neighbor's house, where she told the neighbor about the attack. The neighbor said that Rogers had recently lost her job and had attempted to volunteer to work with children but was turned down due to lesbianism.
Police are investigated and reported that Rogers agreed to talk to the FBI. Because it was reported as a "hate crime", her name was kept confidential to protect her.
Statement Analysis is in bold type. Italics and underlining are added for emphasis in the analysis.
Rogers reportedly came forward, using her name, to combat accusations that she had lied. To date, I have not been able to find any media reports that questioned the veracity of the account.
In Statement Analysis, we look for linguistic indicators of veracity, ranging from the most elementary (she tells us, herself, "I told the truth") to the more complex (use of sensory detail) in order to discern truth from deception.
Many people feel intuitively that someone is either truthful or deceptive. Each person, upon hearing (and watching) this video, makes a decision to believe the account, or to question it. With Statement Analysis, we are able to not only give an opinion, but are able to express the specific reasons why we believe the statement to be truthful or deceptive.
The horrific nature of the reported crime is one that has caught the nation's attention. This means that many will be viewing Statement Analysis for the first time. Statement Analysis dates back to the time of King Solomon and is based upon the very language that one uses, presupposing that someone is truthful.
With this presupposition, we are then to move from word to word, with an expectation of truth. If we are 'surprised' by what is not expected, we note this carefully, allowing the subject (speaker) to guide us along the way.
Eventually, the analyst will draw a conclusion: Truthful, Deceptive, or Inconclusive. Given the length of the sample here, an analyst should be able to rule out "Inconclusive" in his conclusion.
First we have the statement in its entirety, as aired by media, followed by its repetition with emphasis and analysis in bold type. In the color coding schematic of Scientific Content Analysis, blue is the highest on the sensitivity scale.
"Being a victim in a situation like this, or a survivor, um, and then having your, uh, integrity questioned I guess, it feels very victimizing again. It feels very, uh, saddening, uh, it makes an already difficult situation more difficult. Um. Because you know my world, has been changed forever by these events and and uh, so that the idea that that people think its a lie so, uh, it's hurtful.
It's understandable, I mean, intellectually, I understand that people sort of have a hard time wrapping their heads around the events that have happened as do I.
Um, but I'm a person, you know. With feelings, with concerns and just so uh, it feels like I don't know, like a punch in the stomach, kinda. Like a betrayal.
Instead of the focus being on safety and healing and the investigation the whole things turned into a defense and it starts to feel like, oh, you know like, you know it doesn't even become about the situation. It becomes something about all together different and then I started to feel like a pawn in a game. That isn't my game, you know. This isn't, you know, I didn't ask for this, I don't want this, and so you know the, I , whatever peoples intentions are or are not, um, it is important to me that they understand, for myself and future victims, hopefully there will be none but.
People are people. Agendas are agendas and I think that this is so important that we distinguish between those two things. Um. I was hurt. And, like what matters is the story. You know? That's awful. It feels awful to me. This is an investigation. This is a crime. This is not, it deserves a level of respect. I know when these sorts of things happen, it, it ignites fires and that's a good thing, in some ways, um, it can also be a very bad thing. Um.
I'm not a pawn in a game, you know. I'm a person and it very much feels like I'm being used as a pawn. I want people to know I'm not afraid. I want other victims to know that it is important to come forward. I also wanted some control over what was happening in the media. Um. And I though that the best way to do that was to do it myself. I want people to understand. Maybe you don't know me.
But you probably know somebody that something like this has happened to. So, for people to think that this doesn't happen here; it does. It did.
Everyone is worthy of safety, of justice and of fairness and I'm not hiding from this anymore. There is fear, but there is resilience, you know, there is, forward." (end of statement)
In expectation of truth, what is it that we look for?
The subject reported a horrific attack. We expect her to assert that she was attacked.
Since the attack was very violent, we have an expectation of sensory description. Victims of violent attacks often talk about things they sensed, through sight, smell, or touch. This is a signal that someone is entering into experiential memory and being truthful. Some examples include:
"the smell of motor oil on his hands", "his breath smelled like beer", "his hands were cold..." or the feel of the knife used to cut, the sound of the gunshot, and so on. We all have a connection with the past through our senses which firms the events in our memory.
We expect rage at anyone who questions the account. When someone is the victim of an attack, there is no possible acceptance that it did not happen: it is too real, too painful, too close. Anyone who says otherwise will be met with a harsh reaction.
We expect to hear fear. The three attackers are on the loose, and even when someone wishes to conceal fear, it is evident.
Because she reportedly came forward and gave her name due to her veracity being challenged, we have an easy expectation that she will connect herself to the attack. This is done simply, without qualification, by the single most used word in the English language: "I." We expect to hear, "I was attacked" and "I told the truth." We would not expect her to not say these things, nor to qualify with "I think I told the truth..." or, "I think it happened," Both the absence and the qualification would be flagged for deception on such a plainly horrific violent attack. The statement here is in italics, as we break it down for signals of truth or deception. We seek to learn; Is memory playing? Does she speak from experiential memory?
We let the subject guide us.
People do not like to lie; therefore, they simply leave out information rather than directly lie and cause internal stress.
The following is 464 Words.
Because this is not an account of the attack, we are unable to measure the statement on its form.
Of the 464 words, we now count commonly expected words in a violent crime situation
1. The word "attack" is used: 0 Times
2. The word "crime" is used: 1 Time
3. The word "truth" is used: 0 Times
4. The word "assault" is used: 0 Times
5. The word "danger" is used: 0 Times
6. The word "pain" is used: 0 Times
7. The word "cut" is used 0 Times
8. The word "violated" is used 0 Times
9. The word "blood", (in any form) 0 Times
10. The word "arrest" is used 0 Times
11. The word "violent" is used: 0 Times
12. The word "pain" 0 Times
13. The word "cruel" 0 Times
14. The word "hurt" is used 2 Times (emotional, not physical)
15. The word "pawn" is used 3 times.
16. The word "agenda" is used 2 times.
17. The word "people" is used 8 times.
18. The word "person" is used 2 times.
These are all terms expected in reporting such a violent, sadistic crime. Their absence is noted.
"Being a victim in a situation like this, or a survivor, um,
It should be noted that deception is often indicated in statements that begin without a pronoun.
Where a subject begins a statement is always important. Here, the statement does not begin with what happened, or an assertion that the subject has told the truth, but rather a classification:
"Being a victim" is then changed to "survivor."
There is no pronoun connecting her to being either.
She does not tell us that she is a victim, nor does she say she is a survivor. We need a pronoun to connect her and it is absent. This is an example of passivity in language. Passivity is often used when concealing identity or responsibility. She does not tell us who is a victim nor who is a survivor.
We should also note that "survivor" is a status that is desirable. Since she is speaking for herself, this may be an attempt to portray herself as a "survivor" in a complimentary form, without making a direct statement. This should lead the analyst to question if the subject is making a truthful report, or is attempting to persuade. Since she does not connect herself to the crime, we cannot connect her to the crime. Because of this, the analyst should be on the outlook for language that distances the subject from the crime, but instead ties the subject to a motive for making a false report.
Question for analyst: Since the absence of words describing the crime is noted, and an attempt to portray the subject as a "survivor", is there other language that supports or refutes the notion of having another motive?
and then having your, uh, integrity questioned I guess, it feels very victimizing again.
Note that the subject distances herself from having her integrity questioned by using the pronoun "your" instead of "my integrity"; and weakens it even further by reducing this to a "guess."
The subject has not told us that her integrity was questioned.
In reading the online accounts of the attack, this analyst did not find a single article questioning the subject's integrity.
That she uses the second person "your" and reduces it (or its impact) to only a "guess", the reader should wonder if the subject, herself, has fabricated the notion of having her integrity questioned in public, especially since television is a public medium for her refutation.
Please note that the subject does not tell us who feels "victimized again", noting that the word "again" may indicate that if it is not her, than she was not "victimized" the first time.
When someone is deceptive, they wish to avoid the internal stress of lying so they withhold information instead, allowing the reader/listener to simply believe the subject is talking of herself. Later she can say she did not lie: she did not say she was a victim, nor was she victimized again. This is how deception is discerned.
Since she does not tell us she is being victimized "again", we cannot say it for her, but we can also conclude that if the "again" is deceptive, the original is also not about her, but is deceptive. She cannot be victimized "again" if she wasn't victimized. The distancing language of the use of the second person affirms this.
It feels very, uh, saddening,
Note the passivity. Previously I stated that passivity in language is used to conceal identity or responsibility. "The gun went off" is an example of passivity. It is truthful, the gun was fired, but it conceals the identity (and responsibility of the shooter).
Note that she speaks of emotions, not of physical pain from a horrific assault. Physical pain, especially from the up close and personal carving of flesh, is something we would expect to hear about, not emotions of sadness. We expect anger at such a terrible intrusion and invasion into her personal body.
We continue to note that she does not say that she is feeling sad, only "it" feels "saddening" (rather than "sad"). This distances her from "sad" twice; once by the absence of a pronoun linking her, and the other from being "sad" directly, as it is only "saddening", or that which causes sadness. This distancing language is noted for deception.
uh, it makes an already difficult situation more difficult.
Note that she reported a horrific attack, but here it is reduced to a "situation."
We do not expect someone to call a vicious and violent attack a "situation." this is called soft language. Soft language is an indication that there is no linguistic connection to the assault.
Note that she does not say for whom an already difficult situation exists. If she cannot use a simple pronoun to connect herself, we cannot do it for her. Now, we find that she uses a first person pronoun:
Um. Because you know my world, has been changed forever by these events and and uh, so that the idea that that people think its a lie so, uh, it's hurtful.
Here she uses "my world", in the present, has been changed. By what? She says "these events", with "events" being plural. What events? The attack? The TV appearance?
1. Note that "event" is not a word linking to the "attack" as it is softening language.
2. Note that "events" is plural indicating other "events" have "changed" her world.
Now note what is so "hurtful": it is not the vicious attack with knives and gasoline, it is only the "idea" that "people" think. It is not even the questioning of her account which is hurtful, it is only the "idea" of it. This distancing language indicates that the questioning of her account may not be real, but only an "idea"; which is buttressed by the fact that I have not found any news agency questioning her account.
Please note "it's a lie" may be an embedded admission. This is especially note worthy because we have not heard any interviewer say to her, "people say it's a lie", or, to match her language, "people have an idea that it may be a lie"; both of which would have been excused as entering into the language of another. Therefore, this appears to be an embedded admission of lying.
It's understandable, I mean, intellectually, I understand that people sort of have a hard time wrapping their heads around the events that have happened as do I.
Truthful people do not accept the possibility that they are lying, but when it comes to experiencing trauma, personal and violent, but when it comes to physical assault, there is no allowance for someone to question the veracity. Any questioning brings anger and biting words. This is similar to the report of violent crime: "the SOB stole my life!" and not "the gentleman caused me discomfort." Language must match reality. Here, the subject allows for others to not believe her. Her allowance is wise. Psychologically, liars sometimes do not want to be in the position of defending their lies; they do not wish to be linguistic adversaries, therefore, they "understand" or allow for doubt. When someone allows for doubt, it is wise to believe them.
The most important word in the English language is "I." It is used more than any other word, and it is a word that humans are perfect at using. They do not say "we" when they mean "I", as they know if they were alone, or were with others. Here, she finally ties herself, via the important pronoun, "I" to something, making it a very important sentence.
"I understand..." Since this is the first entrance of the word "I" into her statement, it is an important sentence and it is something she links herself to: understanding that she will not be believed.
She does not use the word "I" to tie herself to "attack"
She does not use the word "I" to tie herself to "truth."
She does use the word "I" to tie herself to disbelieving her story.
This is called allowing the subject to guide us.
Even she, herself ("") has trouble believing it. If it happened, why the trouble?
If the subject allows for even herself not to believe or "wrap her head around", while bearing the physical scars of a violent, sadistic attack, we should allow ourselves room not to believe it, either.
Um, but I'm a person, you know.
She declares herself to be a "person", which is gender neutral, instead of a "woman." We now have "person" introduced and will note its further use in the singular or plural form. We seek to learn how she identifies herself. She did not call herself a "victim" nor a "survivor" as the pronouns were absent. Here, the pronoun "I" is used.
With feelings, with concerns and just so uh, it feels like I don't know, like a punch in the stomach, kinda. Like a betrayal.
"She is a "person" with feelings. This indicates that she may believe there are others without "feelings" and is a focus upon the emotional. She then describes her feelings like "a punch in the stomach". This is unusual since we learned that her stomach was reportedly carved with a knife, a terribly painful and humiliating experience. Yet, there is no mention of it, only a "punch" related to emotions and not a physical attack.
Instead of the focus being on safety and healing and the investigation the whole things turned into a defense and it starts to feel like, oh, you know like, you know it doesn't even become about the situation.
The subject introduces the word "focus" here and then tells us what the focus is not on:
1. safety
2. healing
3. investigation
1. Safety. There are 3 violent, sadistic, hateful men on the loose who "found" her (as reportedly written in her basement) of whom we would expect her to be in terror of.
2. Healing. By the time of this interview, the wounds are fresh.
3. The investigation is mentioned last.
Note "starts to feel" is emotions and not physical.
Note the word "situation." Why is it that she cannot bring herself to call it an "attack"? Why is it reduced to a "situation."? This is a linguistic disconnect and another signal that she is not linking herself to a violent crime.
In order for us to link her to the violent crime reported, she must tell us so.
If she cannot bring herself to link herself to a violent assault, we cannot do it for her.
If she cannot bring herself to say "I told the truth" while interviewing over her veracity, we are not allowed to do it for her.
It becomes something about all together different
"It becomes" is also passive language. Who made it become something? This is an indication of deception as she does not want to say who it is that is making it become something. When a deceptive person employs passive language to avoid being recognized or responsible, it is often the subject, herself, who is responsible but does not wish to be revealed. Without a pronoun, there is no strong statement made. Next, the pronoun reemerges:
and then I started to feel like a pawn in a game.
We always note when someone reports something as having begun, but not completed. She "started" to feel, which uses "feel", another emotion, instead of physical or sensory descriptions of the attack.
She introduces two important words to the reader:
"pawn" and "game."
A "pawn" is a small piece used in a larger scheme.
A "game" is not a word we would expect to hear over a vicious attack. She has introduced to the audience the notion that a "game" is being played out before them, and she is a part of the game. This is a strong disconnect from a violent crime.
That isn't my game, you know.
Statement Analysis takes note of anything reported in the negative as highly important. Here, she tells us "this" isn't "my game." This affirms that it is a "game" but only that she does not want ownership of it. This is evidenced not only by the negative denial, but also by the word "that".
The word "this" indicates closeness; while the word "that" shows distance. "Please pass my that book. No, not that one, but this one..." showing closeness and distance. She denies that the game, of which she feels like a pawn, is hers, and uses the distancing word "that".
Since it was she who was physically attacked and it is she who is talking so that people will believe her, why is she employing distancing language? Why is it "that"? Can she distance herself from it linguistically?
She cannot:
This isn't, you know, I didn't ask for this, I don't want this, and so you know the, I , whatever peoples' intentions are or are not, um, it is important to me that they understand, for myself and future victims, hopefully there will be none but.
Here we have broken sentences, which indicate incomplete thoughts, or self censoring. She began with telling us what "this" is not, but then stops and tells us that she didn't "ask" for "this" and that she does not want "this."
She then began her sentence with the strong pronoun, "I", but quickly changed to "whatever peoples'..."
She introduces "pawn", "game" and "intentions" into the statement. This is very important in understanding what it is she is doing.
By now, it is evident that she is not asserting that her police report was truthful.
She does not link herself, linguistically, with a violent crime.
She introduced "game" and "intentions" to the statement, telling us that something else is going on, and it is not about a physical, violent, sadistic and cruel assault.
We also take notice of "people" being used; the plural of "person" which was something that she called herself. The link is not lost upon us: intentions, game, pawn, are all related, just as "person" is related to "people."
Investigators should see to learn if she acted alone.
She then tells us what is important to her: it is not that the three assailants are caught before they return to finish what they started, but that people "understand."
In a truthful account, we expect to hear terror, physical descriptions, and harsh language of a harsh attack. We expect of upmost importance that the three attackers be caught so that she, and others, can be safe from such horror.
People are people. Agendas are agendas
She introduced the word "agenda", and repeated it, making "people" and "agenda" sensitive, or important to her.
She does not speak of the attack, nor does she affirm truth, but speaks of agendas, games, pawns, understanding and feelings.
and I think that this is so important that we distinguish between those two things.
It is important that "we" distinguish between "those" (distance) two things: "people" (of which the single is "person") and "agendas", that is, a reason that someone has for another purpose, like a pawn being sacrificed tactically, in an overall strategy to fulfill an agenda (checkmate) in a chess "game."
Um. I was hurt.
The "um's" are added as spoken, as they show pauses, which indicate sensitivity or time to think. Here we have a strong statement:
"I was hurt."
The problem for the analyst is that in a horrific attack as described, including attempted murder and mutilation, the words "I was hurt" are needless. In Statement Analysis, whenever we have unnecessary words, or "unimportant" information, we deem it "doubly important" to the analysis being done. That she was hurt in such a brutal attack does not need to be said; in fact, simply saying "I was hurt" is an understatement. What caused her "hurt"? We follow the context for answers. Just prior to this sentence she spoke of being a pawn in a game that is not hers. This is emotional and not physical. We rely, then, upon the next sentences to help us understand what "hurt" she experienced:
And, like what matters is the story. You know? That's awful. It feels awful to me.
She does not make us wait long to find out: emotional. She now introduces another new word to her account. It is a word that truthful people who have experienced violence against them do not like to use; "story."
She introduced her audience to the themes of "games" and "agendas" and now tells us what matters.
What matters is not the three dangerous men on the loose, or who they may harm next. What matters is the "story."
This is a very strong indiction that Charlie Rogers is telling a "story" as part of a "pawn" in a "game" because she has an "agenda."
The subject, Charlie Rogers, is leading us to understanding.
Note the emotional description of the hurt: "it feels."
This is an investigation.
Yes it is. It is now not only a local investigation, but a federal one, as well. If it is a hoax, it has just gone from misdemeanor status, to felony status in which she could face prison time like her university's professor who reported a fake hate crime as well.
This is a crime.
This is also a truthful statement, as seen in its plain language. "This" is close and may refer to the false reporting.
This is not, it deserves a level of respect.
Note the call for "respect" and not for "fear" or for catching the three violent perpetrators who can get to her again. Instead, she begins with what this is "not", stops herself, (missing information) only to introduce a new word, "respect."
Why would the respect enter this? She has spoken of her feelings and now speaks of not only respect but a "level" of respect.
The broken sentence shows an incomplete thought. Here she tells us what "this" is "not", which shows the closeness of the word "this" and the importance of the "negative"; which she then self-censors. What she was about to say is important and would be learned in a follow up interview.
"This is not a hoax" If this is a direct lie, it would be difficult for her to complete the sentence. It is very difficult to make a direct statement against reality. Recently, a subject yelled at me, "I didn't do..." and stopped. I did not respond but just listened and took notes. In the entire lengthy interview, the subject was unable to put together a complete simple sentence of "I didn't do it" in spite of many opportunities.
A brutal and horrific attack does not need to be said to need "respect" as it either happened or it did not happen, as reported, regardless of sexuality. It needs to be investigated and prosecuted. The level of brutality described, including the attempt to burn down the house, is attempted murder. Yet, she wants "a level of respect." This is an indication that she is not speaking of the crime, but of her story.
For the subject, the vicious attack deserves only a "level" of respect: why the need to qualify "respect" by level? That "this" only deserves a "level" of respect brings doubt upon her story. She allows for understanding of doubters and instead of being scarred from the assault "demanding" justice, she speaks of a "level of respect".
This is a strong indication that she feels in life, that she is not being given a "level of respect" and it is likely attached to her advocacy. These are indications of motive.
Should her story prove to be a story and a hoax, people will speak of her mental health and excuse her behavior, yet here she may be signaling her intentions, which she understands and is purposeful. If it is a hoax, she is not "insane"; in that she does not understand what she is attempting to do with regard to her advocacy.
I know when these sorts of things happen, it, it ignites fires and that's a good thing, in some ways, um, it can also be a very bad thing. Um.
What are "these" short of things? Breaking into a home and carving someone's flesh?
Please note that "these sorts of things" are rare. Carving into flesh? When was the last time we heard of assailants carving slurs into someone's flesh? To reduce it to commonality is a red flag for deceptive hoax.
It is reminscient of the Tawana Brawley hoax. "These" vicious attacks are not common.
Note the reference to igniting fire. Did she ignite her own fire, which, in spite of three men with gasoline, did minimal damage to the home?
If she started the fire, it makes sense that it would enter her language.
This shows an attempt to portray this horrific crime as common. It is not. This is very unusual because it downgrades the special status of such a unique victimization and seeks to "share" common ground with others. When did we last hear of someone being brutally attacked and have slurs carved into the skin?
Note that igniting a fire, in "some" ways is a "good thing" but it also can be a "bad" thing, with "good" qualified by "some ways" but "bad" having no qualification. The "bad" here, in her statement, is stronger than "good."
I'm not a pawn in a game, you know. I'm a person and it very much feels like I'm being used as a pawn.
What we hear in the negative is always important. Many times someone says "this is not personal" and you learn: it was personal.
"It's not about the money" is often exactly about money.
Here, she may be signaling that she is playing a "game."
I want people to know I'm not afraid.
With three violent men, who hunted her down and attempted to kill her, on the loose, she wants people to know she is not afraid. This appears to be an attempt to portray herself in the role of "survivor", that is, favorably, rather than report truth. This is status, including "heroine" status she attempts to bestow upon herself, and must be weighed in correlation to people, or a person, having an agenda.
I want other victims to know that it is important to come forward.
She assumes that others who have been attacked, tied down, carved into their flesh and house burned would not come forward. This shows no connection to the reality of what she reported.
I also wanted some control over what was happening in the media.
"Control" and "media" are linked together. This should be understood with the introduction of the word "agenda."
Um. And I thought that the best way to do that was to do it myself.
This is another linguistic indication that the subject may not have acted alone. She "thought" it best may be because someone else thought otherwise and indicates that even in coming to do the televised interview, there may have been some debate.
I want people to understand. Maybe you don't know me.
Here is a perfect place to say that she told the truth. Instead she wants people to "understand" and she recognizes that people do not "know" her. This links "understanding" to "knowing" her. This is very personal. She wants understanding and it is likely that she has felt very misunderstood in her agenda and this may explain what she is doing.
But you probably know somebody that something like this has happened to. So, for people to think that this doesn't happen here; it does. It did.
This sentence may be embarrassing to her as she tells the audience that they may know someone of whom "something like this has happened."
Do you know someone who had his or her flesh carved with slurs?
Do you know someone who had 3 men break in and attempt to burn someone to death in their house?
This shows a disconnect of reality. She did not report a common hate crime of any sorts, but went very far into sadistic details along with reportedly slurs spray painted in her basement. "We found you *****" as if she was being hunted down.
This is terrorizing and could paralyze someone with fear. No one would be safe until the three monsters are found, yet...she speaks of her feelings, respect, games, and agendas. She does not, even once, reference the horrible nature of the attack.
Everyone is worthy of safety, of justice and of fairness and I'm not hiding from this anymore. There is fear, but there is resilience, you know, there is, forward."
"Everyone" is related to "person" bringing focus, not upon the attack, nor even upon attackers at large, but upon Charlie Rogers, herself. We look at all references to persons within a statement, in all analysis, even in a short interview like this.
"Victim" or "survivor" appears to be attempt to portray herself in media terms that is favorable to subject.
"There is fear" is passive. This is not expected in such a personal vicious attack. Passivity suggests concealment. What is the fear? Who is afraid? What is she afraid of? Being caught and found out as a liar?
She was interviewed because she has been accused of lying. This makes the question, "Are you lying?" the non spoken question. It is simple to answer:
"I did not lie. I was attacked by three masked men." She did not say so.
If she cannot bring herself to assert herself as having told the truth, we cannot be expected to do it for her.
Based upon this interview, void of any and all evidence:
There is nothing within this short interview that shows that Charlie Rogers is telling the truth about the assault. Not even Charlie Rogers, herself, affirms it to be true.
We expect her to say she told the truth but she did not. If this really happened to her, why doesn't she make a simple assertion to say so?
This is indicative of a hoax that she, along with her agenda, has perpetrated upon the public. The public has responded with overwhelming support, rallies, politicians and raising of money. The subject has a lawyer now, and will likely need one.
Charlie Rogers is deceptive about being the victim and survivor of a horrific attack, perpetrated against her due to her homosexuality and her advocacy.
She will likely face charges of lying to law enforcement, locally and federally.
0 comments:
Post a Comment