Found Safe TN - SLP, 14, Madisonville, Monroe County, 13 Jan 2019 #5 *ARRESTS*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
oviedo said:
True - I guess I am too trusting of LE - it just wouldn't have occurred to me that the FBI would be in some conspiracy to return a child to a home where a rape(s) occurred and it is on video IMO. I honestly do not believe he would have been arrested at all if he had done this immediately JMO
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand your post. The FBI involved in a conspiracy?
MOO
 
BUF said:
I agree about not wanting to disclose the city it was sent from so that it was sent from elsewhere. IIRC FedEx doesn't ask for identification sending a package. Has this changed? A fictitious address could maybe have been used and gotten there overnight.

I think the lack of urgency getting this package to the FBI is the issue... about two weeks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I suppose he could have used a fictitious address but there are those darn cameras everywhere... I wish they would have gotten the package off sooner, too. Hopefully we'll learn more about the time from arrival in Madison to the time the package was sent. He was working and going to school, right? Or was he finished with school?
MOO
 
I have not commented much here but have read each post from the beginning. My thoughts on RP ( fwiw ) make me believe he tried to help her in the way he knew how. Meaning, IMHO he has lower problem solving skills than most 30+ year old's. He wanted to help and went about it on an age level much closer to SLP. He clearly made some questionable decisions and did not follow what most of us here would consider the lawful or many a better word, logical path. HOWEVER, I think his intentions were honest and caring. He really wanted to be her hero, IMO. He was scared for her and himself and I think that was genuine. He knew what he needed to do, he just didn't have the higher level skills to make just a few minor adjustments in his plan. Those few things got him arrested. We have laws and such...............
MOO
 
oviedo said:
snipped
Monday’s motion states that the home belongs to Rogers’ mother, who was unaware that the girl was at her home.
Madison man charged with exploitation of Tennessee girl had reached out to FBI, lawyers say

This answers one question for me according to this report - Mom was unaware she was in the basement. I'm trying to think like this guy - I just can't - the first thing I would have done if I did bring an abused child to the home I lived in with my Mom would be to confide in her and ask her advice. But that's just me IMO- I am going to await all of the facts. I'm still very bothered by his actions from January 14 - January 31.
ETA: from the same article - so he knew how Fedex worked and could easily have sent everything on the 15th via fedex IMO.
Most recently, the motion states, Rogers had started a job with FedEx.
Click to expand...
there is one part in the document where SLP says to BR, what happens between us then. That's strange to me
 
KV: I’m just gonna kill myself
Bryan: so don’t let him take you anywhere KV if you’re just going to kill yourself you might as well try running away to a friends house you have nothing to lose ------ Bryan: Then I guess your only option is to run away and show the people you run to the recording and tell them he’s sexually abusing you
KV: So what’s happens between us now bryan Bryan: Then go to a hospital and get a rape kit
 
oviedo said:
snipped
Monday’s motion states that the home belongs to Rogers’ mother, who was unaware that the girl was at her home.
Madison man charged with exploitation of Tennessee girl had reached out to FBI, lawyers say

This answers one question for me according to this report - Mom was unaware she was in the basement. I'm trying to think like this guy - I just can't - the first thing I would have done if I did bring an abused child to the home I lived in with my Mom would be to confide in her and ask her advice. But that's just me IMO- I am going to await all of the facts. I'm still very bothered by his actions from January 14 - January 31.
ETA: from the same article - so he knew how Fedex worked and could easily have sent everything on the 15th via fedex IMO.
Most recently, the motion states, Rogers had started a job with FedEx.
Click to expand...

I really get what you are saying here. I think he was very immature. I know that is a kind of 'excuse' type catchall thing, but I just can't help but think that maybe he and his mother still had a very "mommy and son" type relationship. Meaning, the dynamic was still very much "oh my mother would never understand....and then I will be in trouble". Kind of like how when I was a teen I thought my parents would get mad at me when I did something that I thought was right but maybe in a grey area...this or that so I couldn't possibly tell them.

OR maybe also SLP was failed by at least one parent for most of her life. Perhaps she begged him not to confide in a parent since she never even knew a parent could be trusted to listen and believe???

Most people that hide things from trusted adults do so for a reason. Despite my belief that RP acted with good intentions, it does give me pause.
 
The Night Watchman said:
Realistically, do we really believe the mother did not know that a 14 year was in her house for 2+ weeks? I don't.

When all the facts are out, I might not really care if she knew.
Click to expand...

Well, my girlfriend hid me in her room one night when we were not allowed to have a sleep over but.....

All joking aside, you bring up a good point. It is kind of hard to imagine but again, I probably wouldn't care, depending on the story and how it unfolds.
 
PommyMommy said:
I'm not sure I understand your post. The FBI involved in a conspiracy?
MOO
Click to expand...
If he was convincing her that LE wouldn't help her (or if she was already convinced) then there was no urgency to get the package to the FBI right away if they thought that the FBI wouldn't listen to her story either - conspiracy probably isn't the right word. I'm just having a hard time understanding the delay in getting the package mailed out - he worked at FEDEX - he could have got that package to ST Louis within a day or two - and still driven it there if he was so afraid of being tracked and having LE lead back to him IMO. There is something else going on here. I will await the response in today's hearing. JMO
 
I read the defense memo. Unlike the majority, I do not see this man as a "misguided" hero, although his actions did lead to evidence being generated. Why?

1. What 31 year old converses online with a minor child? I have a major problem with that. They had multiple conversations. Clearly she had developed a trust or friendship with this 31 year old adult in order to get to the point she was willing to reveal abuse to him and beg him for help. What adult man is having such indepth conversations with a minor child on the internet?

2. Yes. He suggested a couple other options in the conversation the defense laid out. But he didn't press those extremely viable options. Like going to the hospital to get a rape kit. He didn't urge her to do so and reassure her that with her word and her rapists' DNA inside her, she'd be rescued by police. To me, he suggested them as other options but he didn't seem serious about those options. He didn't cycle back to them. When she begged for help he didn't continually tell her she'd be safe with those options. What he really pressed was video evidence. He really wanted that video.

3. There was audio that, when coupled with her own words, would've been quite enough for her to go to the police and be rescued. He continued to insist on VIDEO.

4. After receiving the video, he didn't simply call the authorities. "Hey, this child sent me this video of her being raped." He didn't immediately call 911. He told her he wouldn't be in trouble for picking her up if she made a video with evidence. And once she made it, he picked her up. However, that shows he believed it was viable evidence. And it shows he believed that the presence of the video would protect him from legal trouble. In other words, he didn't know asking her to make it would be illegal if he could show he was doing it to help get evidence. So he had no reason not to call 911 immediately and give them what he had gotten her to produce.

5. After receiving the video, he picked her up and took her out of state. He has ZERO reason not to drive her to a local LE department immediately, with the video. Instead, he took her across state lines.

6. He waited over 10 days to send the evidence to LE while harboring this minor in his mother's basement. Why?

7. What's this about him saying the video was too blurry?

I find his actions quite suspect. I don't think he deserves a medal for not sexually assaulting her for the days he had her. He could've been quite happy with just the video e got her to generate. He could've been working up to further exploitation.

If he was an 18 or 19 year old young man his actions might be more excusable to me because they're still at that age when there's this magical divide between adults and kids. Where adults and authorities aren't totally trusted.

But this is a 31 year old man conversing with a minor child online for a lengthy time period and insisting she generate child *advertiser censored* before he can help her.

The reaction here and the fact that he appears not to have assaulted her makes me believe he might indeed prevail in mitigating the charge. But I believe the charge was and is viable and necessary.

Just think of the sordid avenues we would be opening up to child sexual exploitation if a defense to encouraging a child to video and send an adult a recording of herself being assaulted, would be viable, under the auspicies of trying to "gather evidence".

I believe the charge is merited.

Finally, I think @MsFacetious mentioned a kidnapping charge would probably be dropped against BR. I didn't see any kidnapping charge. Only one charge - child exploitation. Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
Good morning. I am reposting the defense attorney's response for the detention hearing, filed yesterday. They are on the docket for later this afternoon. When the new docs are available I'll post those too, both from the District Attorney and for the defense. Those docs might not be available until tomorrow morning.

Also, there may be a media thread for this case but I couldn't find it. So I'm just going to post here. I hope that's ok.
 

Attachments

  • court doc.pdf
    255 KB · Views: 17
gitana1 said:
I read the defense memo. Unlike the majority, I do not see this man as a "misguided" hero, although his actions did lead to evidence being generated. Why?

1. What 31 year old converses online with a minor child? I have a major problem with that. They had multiple conversations. Clearly she had developed a trust or friendship with this 31 year old adult in order to get to the point she was willing to reveal abuse to him and beg him for help. What adult man is having such in depth conversations with a minor child on the internet?

2. Yes. He suggested a couple other options in the conversation the defense laid out. But he didn't press those extremely viable options. Like going to the hospital to get a rape kit. He didn't urge her to do so and reassure her that with her word and her rapists' DNA inside her, she'd be rescued by police. To me, he suggested them as other options but he didn't seem serious about those options. He didn't cycle back to them. When she begged for help he didn't continually tell her she'd be safe with this options. What he really pressed was video evidence. He really wanted that video.

3. There was audio that, when coupled with her own words, would've been quite enough for her to go to the police and be rescued. He continued to insist on VIDEO.

4. After receiving the video, he didn't simply call the authorities. "Hey, this child sent me this video of her being raped." He didn't immediately call 911. He told her he wouldn't be in trouble for picking her up if she made a video with evidence. And once she made it, he picked her up. However, that shows he believed it was viable evidence. And it shows he believed that the presence of the video would protect him from legal trouble. In other words, he didn't know asking her to make it would be illegal if he could show he was doing it to help get evidence. So he had no reason not to call 911 immediately and give them what he had gotten her to produce.

5. After receiving the video, he picked her up and took her out of state. He has ZERO reason not to drive her to a local LE department immediately, with the video. Instead, he took her across state lines.

6. He waited over 10 days to send the evidence to LE while harboring this minor in his mother's basement. Why?

7. What's this about him saying the video was too blurry?

I find his actions quite suspect. I don't think he deserves a medal for not sexually assaulting her for the days he had her. He could've been quite happy with just the video e got her to generate. He could've been working up to further exploitation.

If he was an 18 or 19 year old young man his actions might be more excusable to me because they're still at that age when there's this magical divide between adults and kids. Where adults and authorities aren't totally trusted.

But this is a 31 year old man conversing with a minor child online and insisting she generate child *advertiser censored* before he can help her.

The reaction here and the fact that he appears not to have assaulted her makes me believe he might indeed prevail in mitigating the charge. But I believe the charge was and is viable and necessary.

Just think of the sordid avenues we would be opening up to child sexual exploitation if it a defense to encouraging a child to video and send an adult a recording of herself being assaulted, would be viable, under the auspicies of trying to "gather evidence".

I believe the charge is merited.

Finally, I think @MsFacetious mentioned a kidnapping charge would probably be dropped against BR. I didn't see any kidnapping charge. Only one charge - child exploitation. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your comments. I have a question and this was brought up last night and I can't find it...do you remember where we heard the video was too blurry?
 
Yesiamapirate said:
I have not commented much here but have read each post from the beginning. My thoughts on RP ( fwiw ) make me believe he tried to help her in the way he knew how. Meaning, IMHO he has lower problem solving skills than most 30+ year old's. He wanted to help and went about it on an age level much closer to SLP. He clearly made some questionable decisions and did not follow what most of us here would consider the lawful or many a better word, logical path. HOWEVER, I think his intentions were honest and caring. He really wanted to be her hero, IMO. He was scared for her and himself and I think that was genuine. He knew what he needed to do, he just didn't have the higher level skills to make just a few minor adjustments in his plan. Those few things got him arrested. We have laws and such...............
MOO
Click to expand...

His problem solving skills seemed advanced to me. He damn well knew that if she had her rapist's DNA inside of her, she would be rescued. He talked about a rape kit. He knew she could go to a friend's for help with or without video or biological evidence. He chose a suspiciously circuitous route IMO.
 
gitana1 said:
I read the defense memo. Unlike the majority, I do not see this man as a "misguided" hero, although his actions did lead to evidence being generated. Why?

1. What 31 year old converses online with a minor child? I have a major problem with that. They had multiple conversations. Clearly she had developed a trust or friendship with this 31 year old adult in order to get to the point she was willing to reveal abuse to him and beg him for help. What adult man is having such in depth conversations with a minor child on the internet?

2. Yes. He suggested a couple other options in the conversation the defense laid out. But he didn't press those extremely viable options. Like going to the hospital to get a rape kit. He didn't urge her to do so and reassure her that with her word and her rapists' DNA inside her, she'd be rescued by police. To me, he suggested them as other options but he didn't seem serious about those options. He didn't cycle back to them. When she begged for help he didn't continually tell her she'd be safe with this options. What he really pressed was video evidence. He really wanted that video.

3. There was audio that, when coupled with her own words, would've been quite enough for her to go to the police and be rescued. He continued to insist on VIDEO.

4. After receiving the video, he didn't simply call the authorities. "Hey, this child sent me this video of her being raped." He didn't immediately call 911. He told her he wouldn't be in trouble for picking her up if she made a video with evidence. And once she made it, he picked her up. However, that shows he believed it was viable evidence. And it shows he believed that the presence of the video would protect him from legal trouble. In other words, he didn't know asking her to make it would be illegal if he could show he was doing it to help get evidence. So he had no reason not to call 911 immediately and give them what he had gotten her to produce.
Click to expand...
Snipped for space

Thank you Gitana! I feel sane again!
 
Misngpersresearcher said:
I agree with most of your comments. I have a question and this was brought up last night and I can't find it...do you remember where we heard the video was too blurry?
Click to expand...

It's in the complaint. Page 2, #6.

"Rogers stated he did not ever send the video to law enforcement because he did not think it would stand up in court. He admitted to driving to Tennessee to pick up KV #1 and bringing her back to his residence in Wisconsin."
 
The Night Watchman said:
Realistically, do we really believe the mother did not know that a 14 year was in her house for 2+ weeks? I don't.

When all the facts are out, I might not really care if she knew.
Click to expand...
I'm having trouble grasping that too. A day or two, maybe. But two weeks? o_O
oviedo said:
If he was convincing her that LE wouldn't help her (or if she was already convinced) then there was no urgency to get the package to the FBI right away if they thought that the FBI wouldn't listen to her story either - conspiracy probably isn't the right word. I'm just having a hard time understanding the delay in getting the package mailed out - he worked at FEDEX - he could have got that package to ST Louis within a day or two - and still driven it there if he was so afraid of being tracked and having LE lead back to him IMO. There is something else going on here. I will await the response in today's hearing. JMO
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. I don't understand the delay either and have many more questions as well. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 216 more.
Total: 4,218 (members: 217, guests: 4,001)

Online statistics

Members online
217
Guests online
4,002
Total visitors
4,219
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,159
Messages
17,964,396
Members
228,706
Latest member
mhenderson
Back
Top