WBRZ has given us some previously unknown information that adds clarity to absolutely nothing at all... but it certainly opens up more angles of perspective. Two of those angles I will separate in two different posts. Today, the focus is on another character on the scene .
For the most part, the article just expounds on iffy information that was provided by the same dubious sources already discussed. Same for the timeline in the link therein. What is interesting in this account is the introduction of the person on the scene when the shooting occurred, Maria Edwards. Not only is Mrs Edwards present at the scene when Hodgkinson is shot, but her name miraculously appears to be the beneficiary:
"Just days before he died, Rogers changed his will and left everything to Edwards, who was inside the Rogers estate when the shooting happened and called 911. At the Edwards' house Friday, Edwards' husband told WBRZ his wife was not interested in discussing the case but was shocked to learn Maria Edwards was listed as the person with the sole power over Rogers' assets.
While Edwards is listed as the beneficiary, court records show no will has been filed and Rogers' daughter, Kimberly, is listed as the administrator of her dad's estate, estimated at $165,000. There will likely be a court battle over the assets."
It's important to note that Mrs Edwards is involved as an associate in a pre-paid legal services company that gives members access to lawyer services such as power of attorney and changing of wills. Behold, somehow, there was a change of will done just days prior to the deaths, but it wasn't completed correctly. According to the article there are also claims that Hodgkinson wanted Edwards to take custody of the children when they died. Why wouldn't Rogers have addressed that instead of Hodgkinson, he was the custodial adult. Nevertheless, that's not how inheritance or adoption laws work in this state, and I don't think Rogers or Hodgkinson were nimrods in regards to these laws.
Why would anyone leave a note for undoable directives? A parent would make damned sure the future of their children was not reliant solely on ink on paper. Were the two children Rogers was adopting also inheritors of the estate? If Mrs Edwards ended up with custody of the two children then maybe if she lost the estate because of inheritance laws, she could still benefit from them as the custodial adult.
A quick search on the Ibervillle Parish Assessor's website reveals the owner of the home is now T.Scott Rogers. I wonder how that will play out in the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment