Dark Downeast - The Murder of Ronald Rogers Part 2 (Vermont)

Episode Date: February 13, 2023

VERMONT, 1971: In a homicide investigation, determining the identity of the victim is an obvious and crucial step in the pursuit of justice. Without knowing whose murder they’re investigating, authorities can’t really bring anyone to trial or even fully investigate.In the case of 34-year Vermont Veteran Ronald Rodgers, a family member positively ID’d his body, found shot and on fire on July night on Killington Mountain… But the accused killer’s defense team aimed to convince the jury that the identity of the deceased wasn’t an indisputable fact.If you haven’t yet, listen to part 1 of Ronald Rodgers story on Dark Downeast. In the conclusion of his story, you’ll hear the wild court proceedings, the shocking evidence, and the alternate theory about what happened as the defense attempted to convince the jury, and the public, that maybe Ronald Rodgers was actually the killer himself. View source material and photos for this episode at darkdowneast.com/ronaldrodgers2 Dark Downeast is an audiochuck and Kylie Media production hosted by Kylie Low.Follow @darkdowneast on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTokTo suggest a case visit darkdowneast.com/submit-case

In a homicide investigation, determining the identity of the victim is an obvious and crucial step in the pursuit of justice. Without knowing whose murder they're investigating, authorities can't really bring anyone to trial or even fully investigate. In the case of 34-year-old Vermont veteran Ronald Rogers, a family member positively ID'd his body, found shot and on fire on a July night on Killington Mountain in 1971. But the accused killer's defense team aimed to convince the jury that the identity of the deceased man wasn't an indisputable fact. If you haven't yet, listen to part one of Ronald Rogers' story on Dark Down East. It's the episode just before this one. In the conclusion of his story, you'll hear the wild court proceedings, the shocking evidence, and the alternate theory about what happened as the defense attempted to convince the jury and the public that maybe Ronald Rogers was actually the killer himself. I'm Kylie Lowe and this is the case of Ronald Rogers part two

on Dark Down East. It was 10.30 p.m. the night before the 4th of July in 1971 when a father and son discovered the badly burned body of a man down over an embankment off Roaring Brook Road in Killington, Vermont. A family member later identified the man as 34-year-old veteran Ronald Rogers. Further investigation and an autopsy revealed that he had been killed by several shotgun blasts and the fire was set after his death. His death was ruled a homicide from the very beginning, and the search for potential suspects started in earnest.

Detectives released limited information about the evidence, including the stomach contents of the victim, in hopes of tracking Ronald Rogers' last movements on the night of his death. But the case stalled out for several years until new information brought to light in 1974 led to an arrest warrant for a man named Robert Gaucher, a former taxi driver in Rutland, Vermont. Although the arrest warrant was a promising development in the homicide investigation, authorities had to locate Robert Gaucher first. It took three more years to track him down in Texas and get him back to Vermont to stand trial. The victim, Ronald Rogers, was supposed to stand trial on armed robbery charges for the second time, just days after he was killed. Rumor said that Ronald may have been intending to out a possible accomplice in the robbery of Ames Foodland of 1969, and many wondered if his killing was a way to silence him forever. These rumors and other theories about what happened would be put on full display at Robert Gaucher's trial in the winter of 1977.

The trial date was set for November 1st, 1977, but it wouldn't begin until December of that year. The defense had already asked for and had been granted a change of venue, but still, with the extensive media coverage surrounding the case and the trial, the jury was sequestered to protect Gaucher's right to a fair trial. Two public defenders, Barry Griffith and Donald Graham, represented Gaucher, while the state of Vermont was represented by Rutland County State's Attorney John S. Licardi. Justice Edwin Amidon presided over the proceedings. In their opening arguments, Licardi explained that their witnesses would show that the defendant had motive and opportunity to kill Ronald Rogers. Witnesses would place the two together on the

night of Ronald's death. Liccardi also stated that Gaucher even confessed to the crime, and they'd call that witness to the stand to share her story. The prosecution aimed to establish a motive for Robert Gaucher to kill Ronald Rogers, showing that Robert could have been involved with the Ames Foodland robbery in 1969. Although no second suspect had ever been publicly disclosed and Gaucher was never charged or indicted on crimes relating to that robbery, a witness testified that on the evening of the robbery,

Gaucher was within the vicinity of the supermarket. Marilyn Perkins operated the taxi service that Gaucher worked for at the time, and she said that on June 9, 1969, Gaucher was at her house, just two blocks away from the store. Kevin Duffy reported for the Times-Argus that Mrs. Perkins didn't know how long or exactly when he was at her house, but it was at the general time of the robbery. It was previously reported that Ronald had allegedly fled the scene with the help of a getaway driver. With Gaucher in the area around the time of the robbery, it was possible that he was the getaway driver, and after helping Ronald flee the scene, he himself fled to Mrs.

Perkins' house. It was also possible that Gaucher was the accomplice that Ronald was preparing to implicate at his impending trial days after he was killed. But the witness didn't appear to add much weight to either side's case. After all, Mrs. Perkins couldn't remember the precise time that Gaucher was at her residence, so it wasn't necessarily an alibi for the accused killer, and it wasn't anything but a circumstantial detail that placed Gaucher in the area of the robbery at roughly the same time it happened. While the motive wasn't the strongest piece of the puzzle,

establishing Robert Gaucher's opportunity to carry out the crime was a bit more convincing. According to reporting by Jane Smith for the Burlington Free Press, state's attorney John Licardi introduced evidence that Gaucher had picked up Ronald from his apartment on Cottage Street in Rutland around 5.30 p.m. on the night of the murder. They spent two hours together at the Amber Clown Bar. A bartender there testified that Ronald appeared nervous, so nervous that his hands shook as he tried to fill out and sign a check for their tab. It was previously reported that the two were very close friends, and two friends having a drink together at a bar on a Saturday night wasn't unusual. However, a cousin of Ronald's said that his relationship with Gaucher in more recent days was rocky.

That, paired with Ronald's supposedly nervous demeanor at the bar that night, led prosecutors to believe that something was up between the two of them. They hoped the jury would see it that way too. The crux of the prosecution's case, though, was their star witness, Gaucher's former girlfriend and the mother of his children. She was initially reluctant to give her testimony and was tentative as she answered questions on the stand about the night of July 3rd, 1971. The woman recalled Gaucher showing up to see her that night with something that looked like a spot of blood on his boot. She testified that Gaucher told her, quote, I hope no one saw this when I was walking over here, end quote. Later that night, she testified that they went to a restaurant in downtown Rutland, and Gaucher's mood was nervous and upset.

When she asked Gaucher what was going on, he allegedly said to her, The woman then told the court that Gaucher brought Ronald to the mountain to look for something, and then shot him. But his body would not be identifiable because he started a fire. In her sworn testimony, she told the court that Gaucher had asked her to cover for him, which she agreed to do at the time because she loved him. However, their relationship ended in 1974 when Gaucher left her. According to the Burlington Free Press, police had questioned her multiple times about Gaucher's whereabouts on the night of the murder,

and she stuck to an agreed-upon story that she and Gaucher were parking. Though she did not expand on what this term meant, media coverage used the term in quotes. A month later, she couldn't carry the weight of the lie she'd told any longer. She decided to testify against Gaucher at the grand jury proceedings, and then again during the trial. A supposed confession was a big deal for the case against Robert Gaucher, but the defense dismissed her testimony, arguing that the woman was simply sour that Gaucher walked out on her, and she was fabricating a story against him for revenge. On cross-examination, the defense attorney asked her, quote,

don't you regard this trial as your chance to get back at him? End quote. On cross-examination, the defense attorney asked her, She seemed irritated by the question, sighing deeply before responding simply, In a trial, nothing is considered a known fact until it is entered into the record, and so the state had to establish the identity of the victim that the defendant was charged with killing through witness testimony. The prosecution called Ronald Rogers' uncle to the stand, who was also a Rutland police officer. Edwin Hall had been the one to identify Rogers after his death, primarily based on identifying scars, a tattoo, and facial features, including a condition called hematoma oris, colloquially referred to as cauliflower ears. The body was also clothed in a shirt with the name Ron A. Rogers printed on it, though Hall testified that he did not base

his identification on that t-shirt. Hall had been part of Ronald's life since he was a child and helped raise him, so he was assumed to have enough memory of Ronald's appearance to make a positive identification. He told the court, quote, I have no doubt at all that the body was Ronnie, end quote. But public defenders Graham and Griffith were about to raise all the doubt they could around this basic fact. Rutland County Sheriff Lee Jones testified that no formal methods of identification, no systematic identification of the victim was made. That is, no dental records or blood tests or even fingerprints were used to confirm the positive identification made by Ronald's family member. This detail would give the defense their foothold for a bizarre story. that the victim in this case was not actually Ronald Rogers, and therefore, their client Robert Gaucher could not be convicted of killing him. Dr. Lawrence Harris was chief medical examiner at the time of the murder,

and he examined the body of the victim and conducted the autopsy in 1971. You'd think that the medical examiner who originally worked the case would be a witness for the state, but Dr. Harris's testimony for the defense would turn the case completely on its head. Throughout the investigation, one of the key pieces of information released to the public were details of Ronald Rogers' stomach contents in hopes of tracking his movements on the night of his death. According to the autopsy performed by Dr. Harris, the victim consumed a traditional New England boiled dinner with corned beef and uncooked carrots cut in a specific curlicue shape, possibly by a potato peeler. However, a waitress at the Rutland restaurant

testified that she saw Ronald Rogers on July 3rd, 1971, and that's not what he ate. He was a regular customer and she had a clear memory of what he looked like and of his presence at the restaurant that day. As reported by Kevin Duffy for the Times-Argus, the waitress stated that Ronald ordered a hot turkey sandwich and a glass of milk about four hours before his alleged murder. Dr. Harris was certain that the victim he examined had red meat in his stomach, not poultry, because of the absence of nuclei in the meat's red blood cells. Dr. Harris testified that only the red blood cells of birds and reptiles have nuclei. Although the waitress was confident that the man she saw eating a turkey sandwich on the evening of July 3rd, 1971 was Ronald Rogers,

it was still possible that her memory had clouded in the six years since. If Gaucher's team was putting their entire defense on the theory that the victim wasn't actually Ronald Rogers, they needed weightier evidence to inspire reasonable doubt among the jury. And so, Dr. Harris's testimony continued. The positive identification of Ronald Rogers came from his uncle, and it was based on scars and a tattoo on the body as well as other physical features. However, Dr. Harris testified that he himself did not see the same markings that Ronald's uncle had apparently identified. He claimed that those physical features would not have been visible due to the condition of the body. But there was more.

The victim that Dr. Harris examined had a spleen. According to medical records, Ronald Rogers had his spleen removed in 1961 in routine fashion. That was 10 years before his alleged murder. Sometimes, according to Dr. Harris, an accessory spleen can grow in place of the original one when it is removed. An accessory spleen is smaller and shaped differently than an original spleen. It would have been hard for a pathologist to mistake the two. According to reporting in the Rutland Daily Herald and original court documents, the judge asked Dr. Harris if the spleen he identified was the victim's original spleen.

Dr. Harris said that, yes, it was the spleen the man was born with. The information stunned the courtroom. The Rutland Daily Herald reported that prosecutors were visibly upset by this surprise testimony by Dr. Harris. His claims were so shocking that the prosecution asked for a recess immediately following his testimony. The court remained adjourned for an hour and was expected to resume, but Judge Amidon ceased proceedings for the day and ordered the trial to resume after the weekend. Why bring this up now?

Why raise doubt regarding the identity of the victim six years after the fact? Dr. Harris continued his testimony when the trial resumed the next week, explaining that no one investigating the murder suspected that the body belonged to anyone other than Ronald Rogers. Police would have needed to request fingerprinting, dental records analysis, or blood tests. But according to Dr. Harris, those scientific methods weren't requested and just weren't part of the identification process after Edwin Hall ID'd the body.

And, apparently, it wasn't Dr. Harris' place to challenge the investigators on this, despite him holding firm that fingerprinting should always be part of the identification process for a disfigured corpse. The state called Lt. Ronald Woodard to the stand, who had been present at the scene of the body and at the autopsy. Defense attorney Graham drilled him with questions about why those systematic, scientific methods of identification weren't conducted, such as fingerprinting. Decomposition causes the fingertips to shrink, making it necessary to inject a saline solution to get accurate fingerprints. Woodard said that this process requires amputation of the fingers. Quote, I am a native Vermonter and I felt a little compassion. I don't think you should unduly mutilate the body if there's no need for it.

End quote. The defense did not dispute that the badly burned body of a man was found off Roaring Brook Road in Killington on July 3rd of 1971. They did not deny that the man was a victim of a homicide. And Robert Gaucher's public defenders were not required to suggest another theory about what happened or present a possible alternative suspect in defense of their client. All they needed to do was to get the jury to reasonably doubt any piece of what the prosecution presented as fact. But the defense went there anyway. After exposing the investigative missteps and revealing that the victim was not scientifically identified and therefore the

identification could be incorrect, they went on to suggest a bizarre alternative theory. They argued that Ronald Rogers was actually the killer, and he killed his lookalike to make people think he was dead to avoid facing his second trial for the 1969 armed robbery charges. Ronald's cousin Nancy testified to a scheme that he had supposedly disclosed to her about six months prior to the murder. It was a plan Ronald had in case he wanted, or needed, to disappear. Nancy stated in her testimony that Ronald was even boastful about it, saying that he could get away with the quote-unquote perfect crime. Nancy went on to describe a perfect crime that closely mirrored the actual murder on trial. She testified to the jury

that Ronald said if he ever needed to, he would kill a man in town who looked enough like him that they could be mistaken for brothers. He'd shoot him with a shotgun because he told her that shotgun pellets were impossible to trace. Then, she testified, Ronald said that he'd burn the body on the mountain. She assumed the mountain meant Killington Mountain. However, Nancy said that even though Ronald seemed serious about it, he told her to, quote, Nancy also told the court that her cousin Ronald wouldn't have disappeared for as long as he'd been gone at that point without calling to check in with family. Six years was a very long time. Quote, he might go away for a week or a month, but he would always

call and say he was all right. End quote. When Nancy was shown photos of the victim, she couldn't confidently say if it was her cousin. She testified that it looked like him, but she couldn't be sure it was him. In their final arguments, Rutland County State's Attorney John S. Liccardi reminded the jury that Robert Gaucher had motive and opportunity to kill Ronald Rogers. Ronald was believed to be preparing to implicate Gaucher in the Ames Foodland robbery that was set to go to trial for a second time just days after Ronald was killed. The pair had been seen together that evening, and Gaucher's alibi was broken apart when his ex-girlfriend testified against him. The defense, meanwhile, summarized the stunning medical

testimony from the original pathologist who performed the autopsy. They pointed back to the lack of scientific identification methods and Ronald's plan for a so-called perfect crime, which he allegedly disclosed to a cousin just months before his death. And Graham and Griffith encouraged the jury to see that there was no direct evidence of a planned killing or premeditation, as a first-degree murder charge would require. All the state had, the defense argued, was a story that they dismissed as a fabrication by Gauchet's former girlfriend, told as an act of revenge for him walking out on her and their children. Before the jury was left to deliberate, the defense asked for Robert Gaucher to be acquitted,

stating that it was, quote, impossible for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this was Ronald Rogers, end quote. They cited the medical evidence and testimony by Dr. Lawrence Harris, who performed the autopsy. Though the identity of the man was central to the case, neither the prosecution nor the defense

intended to have the body of the victim exhumed to check dental records, at least not at the time. According to Kevin Duffy's reporting in the Times-Argus, Judge Amidon considered the request for acquittal based on the identity question, but ultimately ruled that because a number of people considered trustworthy by Dr. Harris assured him that the body was that of Ronald Rogers, the jury could also find that the victim was Ronald Rogers. Finally, the complicated case was left to the jury. The Rutland Daily Herald reported that two hours into their deliberations, a member of the jury returned to ask the judge for clarification on the term beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge

explained that the jury must candidly admit there is proof of guilt in the four essential elements of the case, that the body was Rogers, that he was killed at the time and place alleged by the prosecution, that Gaucher killed Rogers, and that he did so with malice or wicked motive. After seven total hours of deliberation, the sequestered jury for the murder trial of Robert Gaucher returned with their verdict. Robert Gaucher, guilty of first-degree murder. One member of the jury agreed to speak to the media following the conclusion of the trial. Kevin Duffy interviewed her briefly for the Rutland Daily Herald. When asked about the verdict, she told the reporter, quote, Joanne Gaucher, it was the deciding factor, end quote.

That was Gaucher's former girlfriend, referred to as, quote, his jilted lover across numerous media outlets at the time. That jilted lover apparently clinched the case in favor of the prosecution. I have to admit, the outcome of Robert Gaucher's trial surprised me. Based solely on the proceedings and the testimony I researched, I'd say the defense did a pretty good job raising not only reasonable but substantial doubts surrounding the state of Vermont's case against Robert Gaucher. Immediately following his conviction for the murder of Ronald Rogers, Gaucher's attorney filed several motions for both an acquittal and a new trial. At the center of these appeals was the same issue they'd hammered

in at trial. The defense believed that the state never proved the identity of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt, and that there was no evidence that Gaucher killed whoever that victim was. The identity issue got even more intense when the defense team argued that state's attorney John LaCardy did not disclose evidence at trial that indicated Ronald Rogers was alive. According to Kevin Duffy of the Rutland Daily Herald, a witness testified during a hearing on the motions for an acquittal and a new trial that he called and left a message at the state's attorney's office during the original trial. The message was a tip. The witness claimed that he saw someone who, quote, strongly resembled Ronald Rogers out and about in town that week.

Duffy reported on the witness testimony. The man told the court that he was walking up the stairs in the F.W. Woolworth Company store when he saw who he was convinced was Ronald Rogers. Quote, I met him face to face point blank. I thought, my goodness, that looks like Ronnie Rogers. I would have spoken to him if I hadn't known he was dead. End quote.

This witness had known Ronald since the 60s when they worked at a ski mountain operating a chairlift together. He said that the man he saw had the same intense eyes as Ronald. It was a characteristic he couldn't forget. He said that he may have ignored the sighting if he hadn't read trial coverage in the paper the same day that Gaucher's defense team was alleging Ronald was still alive. The witness testified that he asked for a call back from Licardi regarding the tip, but he never got one. And Licardi never disclosed it as evidence. Licardi defended his dismissal of the reported sighting and discounted its value in considering a new trial for Robert Gaucher. Quote, the state feels that the evidence

presented by the witness doesn't come anywhere near the evidence needed to set aside this trial. Even if the court decides there was a duty to disclose it, the evidence does not merit a new trial. End quote. Gaucher's first-degree murder conviction carried a mandatory life sentence, but his sentencing was delayed as the judge weighed the motions and appeals for an acquittal and new trial. It took over six months from the conclusion of his trial for the judge to make his ruling. In May of 1978, a Superior Court judge rejected Robert Gaucher's motion for a new trial. Judge Amidon said in his ruling that although Licardi, not informing the defense of the reported sighting of Ronald Rogers during the week of the trial, infringed on Gaucher's rights, it was not enough to warrant a new trial. A month later, Robert Gaucher was sentenced to life in prison and remanded to St. Albans Diagnostic and Treatment Facility, where he'd await a decision on yet another appeal.

You see, cases with mandatory life sentences were automatically appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court. And if the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the original court's decision, it would be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. This meant there was still another avenue for Gaucher's conviction to be overturned and a new trial granted. As that next appeal process chugged along, the biggest and most contentious issue of the entire case would finally be settled. On December 1st, 1978, WCAX-TV reported that authorities were on site at Evergreen Cemetery in Rutland, Vermont. The entrance was sealed off, and a secretive procedure was underway. Although he would be drilled by the press and would even flat out lie in response to their questions about what was happening in the cemetery that day, state's attorney John Licardi later confirmed the rumors. They were exhuming the body of Ronald Rogers, or the man believed to be Ronald Rogers, to put the identity questions raised during trial to bed, once and for all. After careful review and comparison of dental records,

among other scientific methods of identification, the prosecution and defense had their answer. The body was Ronald Rogers. The confirmation of Ronald Rogers' identity eliminated that argument from Robert Gaucher's Supreme Court appeal. His defense team repeatedly claimed that the prosecution did not prove the victim's identity at trial, and now the proof was undeniable. But there was still the issue of the supposed sighting of Ronald Rogers at a department store, and Licardi's dismissal of the information, not informing the defense team of the possible

exculpatory evidence. Even though it was impossible that the witness had seen Ronald Rogers that day since he was since confirmed to be the victim after exhuming his body, the Supreme Court could still find that state's attorney John Liccardi acted in a way that infringed on Gaucher's rights, and that could have impacted the jury's decision. In February of 1979, the Vermont Supreme Court issued their ruling on the motion for a new trial for convicted murderer Robert Gaucher. I want to read part of the court's decision directly. Here it is. The motion alleged that in the midst of the trial, a person contacted the Rutland County State's Attorney's Office to report that on that day,

he had seen a man in Vermont who had appeared to be Ronald Rogers. It also alleged that the witness personally was familiar with Rogers, that this information was communicated to the state's attorney during a trial, and that he failed to inform either the court or defense counsel. The motion further stated that during closing argument and in order to convince the jury that the corpse was that of Ronald Rogers, the prosecution stressed that there was no evidence that Ronald Rogers had been seen since the day the murder victim was discovered. It requested that a new trial be granted on three alternative grounds. First, because the withheld evidence would be likely to bring about an acquittal on

retrial. Second, because the defendant was prejudiced by a violation of Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and 16.2, and third, because the prosecution, by withholding the evidence and then arguing its non-existence to the jury, denied the defendant due process of law by violating his right to a fair trial under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, in Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution. In discussing the defendant's lookalike theory, the prosecutor said to the jury, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that is ridiculous. After committing the crime, Rogers would have had to vanish. He would have had to leave the state of Vermont somehow, having been seen by no one, and never be seen again. The motion for a new trial made the defendant's position clear.

He argued that by suppressing the evidence and then stressing its non-existence to the jury, the prosecutor deprived him of a fair trial. We agree. Since no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury, we reverse and remand. After a year of appeals and motions and exhuming the body of his alleged victim, Robert Gaucher was granted a new trial. Robert Gauthier's second trial for first-degree murder was slated to begin April 30, 1979 in Windsor County Superior Court, but he'd never actually make it to court. A few days prior to the trial's scheduled air date, Robert Gaucher took a deal and entered an Alford plea. That is, he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder but refused to

admit to the crime and maintained his innocence. He said he took the deal to avoid a life sentence. His new sentence was 10 to 12 years in prison, with credit for time served. He'd be eligible for parole in just under six years. According to numerous sources, Robert Gaucher was unaware at the time he entered his plea that the state's star witness, Gaucher's former girlfriend, who testified that he confessed to the murder on the night it happened, was refusing to return to Vermont from her home in California for a second trial. If that was the case, her testimony wouldn't have

been part of the second trial, and it was arguably the strongest evidence the state had against Gaucher. It's impossible to know for sure how everything would have played out, but had Gaucher not taken the plea deal, maybe he wouldn't have served any time at all. Gaucher's attorney later commented that, regardless of whether their client knew about the star witness refusing to testify a second time around, he felt he was choosing, quote, the lesser of two evils, end quote. Robert Gaucher served out the tail end of his sentence at the least restrictive correction center in Vermont, the Windsor Residential Treatment Facility. According to a report in the Brattleboro Reformer, the facility did not have bars, fences, or armed guards. The superintendent of the facility said himself that any prisoner

determined to escape probably could. They operated on a bit of an honor system. If you leave and you're caught, you'll most likely be sent somewhere a lot more restrictive. The Brattleboro Reformer reported that they averaged four to five escapes a year, but the convicted murderers weren't among them. The superintendent called convicted murderers like Robert Gaucher model prisoners. In all of the debate around the identity of the man found shot and badly burned late one July night on Killington Mountain in 1971, Ronald Rogers' identity was nearly erased. The defense team tried their damnedest to scrub him from the case entirely, denying he was the victim of a depraved killing,

even attempting to cast Ronald as a killer himself. I learned only as much about Ronald Rogers as was published in news coverage at the time of his death. I found no obituary expanding on Ronald's life accomplishments or the family he left behind, only an announcement of his burial, which at least was granted the respect of a military service. But in brief interviews with newspapers, family members shared pieces of who he was. I think about Ronald's childhood, punctuated by the death of his mother and desertion by his father, and how that must have informed the rest of his life.

I can't get out of my mind what Ronald's uncle said, that he spent a lot of his life feeling I can't get out of my mind what Ronald's uncle said, that he spent a lot of his life feeling like nobody wanted him. To internalize that as a child is heartbreaking. His uncle also alluded to Ronald's challenges with mental health, but also that he was seeking help for it, something you didn't often see as an option among veterans in the 60s and 70s. Though Ronald Rogers was on a tumultuous path and was awaiting trial for criminal charges himself, it does not erase his humanity, or make him any less deserving, of justice. Thank you for listening to Dark Down East. Sources cited and referenced for this episode are listed at darkdowneast.com. Please follow Dark Down East on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

or wherever you're listening right now. And if you could, leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you're listening right now. And if you could, leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Add a pine tree emoji so I know which episode you came from. I love to hear what you think of the show and what you want to hear next, and reviews are really the best way to support this show and the cases I cover. If you have a personal connection to a case and you want me to cover it on this podcast, please contact me at hello at darkdowneast.com. Thank you for supporting this show and allowing me to do what I do. I'm honored to use this platform for the families and friends who have lost their loved ones and for those who are still searching for answers in cold missing persons and homicide cases.

I'm not about to let those names or their stories get lost with time. I'm Kylie Lowe, and this is Dark Down East.