Sharon Zachary: Impatient Heiress

Robert Rogers Dies at the Hands of a Friend
(“Prints Among Thieves,” Forensic Files)

Greed can take hold of just about anybody, whether it’s a teenager working a funnel cake concession with an overflowing cash box or a county treasurer eyeing the public coffers and thinking he really deserves to be paid for OT.

Sharon Zachary

Most people can shake off the temptation, even if they do create a few mental blueprints for absconding with the funds.

Prints among Thieves” tells the story of a respectable-seeming woman who followed her greed the whole way. She killed the man who stood between her and a pile of money. And she didn’t go about the homicide passively.

Curiosity stoked. Instead of “accidentally” leaving a tennis ball on the staircase or trying the Forensic Files tribute switcheroo of anti-freeze in a Gatorade bottle, Sharon Kay Zachary got up close and personal.

On April 26, 1996, she beat 80-year-old Robert Rogers to death in a bid to gain full access to his personal fortune.

short update to her story appeared on this blog last year, but Google has logged so many searches for her name lately that a longer treatment seems in order.

Cash king. For this post, I looked around for more intelligence on Zachary and also tried to find out whether Rogers’ estranged son ultimately ended up with his dad’s assets.

So let’s get started on the recap with additional information drawn from internet research:

Robert Rogers

Robert Rogers was a colorful old coot who made a small fortune in real estate and trucking in Battle Creek, Michigan. He enjoyed throwing cash around in public. Local thieves preyed upon him multiple times, but Rogers continued to store large sums of cash in his home and on his person.

He had grown up during the Great Depression and didn’t trust banks.

Rogers lived alone in a house on a huge plot of land in Emmett Township, Michigan. His wife had died a few years before he met Sharon Zachary.

Rogers and his only child, an adopted son named Donald, went for long stretches without communicating. When they were together, they argued a lot.

Like a daughter. But Robert Rogers found an agreeable surrogate child in Zachary, a 31-year-old neighbor he hired as a caregiver. He had trouble with his eyesight, so he put Zachary’s name on his checking account and gave her power of attorney to handle his financial transactions.

He also made her the sole beneficiary of his estate.

Forensic Files didn’t mention it, but newspaper accounts reported that Zachary, her husband, Mike, and teenage son, Josh, lived in a house they were in the process of buying from Rogers at the time of the murder.

After one of the robberies, Rogers moved in with the Zacharys for a while and the four became like family, according to “Love Thy Neighbor,” an episode of Mansions and Murders.

Robert Rogers’ house at 1015 Raymond Road has been described as a mansion

Seamy undercoat. Mike Zachary did some kind of work for a carpet retailer, but he tended to have periods of unemployment, according to Tom Headley, a retired Emmett Township police officer who appeared on Mansions and Murders.

Sharon worked as a used-car salesperson, which probably explains a lot.

She may have had persuasive charm, but she was lacking in the common sense department.

It was foolish enough of her to start helping herself to Robert Rogers’ money, but why did she call attention to the theft by buying a car, a truck, a boat, and furniture and taking her family to the Caribbean?

Diminutive killer. Those extravagances added up to about $65,000, according to Forensic Files, and she also transferred another $55,000 in funds to her bank accounts.

At some point, Rogers discovered the financial shenanigans and decided to revoke her power of attorney.

Before he had a chance, a 911 operator got a call from Sharon Zachary to report what looked like a burglary at Rogers’ house. (Her rather husky voice on the phone doesn’t really match the photos from that time; she looks bookish and petite.)

Trace Christenson covered the case for the Battle Creek Enquirer

Initial suspect. Police arrived on the scene to find a hole in a sliding glass door to Rogers’ house, disarray inside, and Robert Rogers lying dead on the floor, struck at least 25 times in the head with a heavy object. Someone had gone through his pockets.

Sharon Zachary probably figured the alienated son would take the fall for the old man’s death.

At first, investigators did focus on Donald Rogers.

Shared animosity. While his father never lacked for cash, Donald had to work two jobs, a shift at General Motors and a part-time gig selling real estate. Donald had once tried, unsuccessfully, to get his father to give him power of attorney — a suspect move.

And the two men were short-tempered. One of their disputes allegedly got physical. All things considered, Donald must have seemed like the perfect patsy for Sharon Zachary.

But Donald had a solid alibi and passed a polygraph test.

Rogers family photo

“We argued, but it was just the way we got along,” Donald would later testify in court, according to the Battle Creek Enquirer.

Hidden mint. Meanwhile, detectives found a partial shoe print on a glass shard in the house that matched one of Sharon Zachary’s size 6½ sneakers. And next to a pond on Robert Rogers’ property, there was a set of house keys. A diver recovered a metal pipe that had been submerged in the pond but still carried a trace of Rogers’ blood.

After investigators uncovered Zachary’s financial misdoings, they theorized that she had bludgeoned Rogers to death, staged the scene to look like a burglary, and accidentally dropped her set of Rogers’ house keys while throwing the murder weapon into the pond.

Oddly, there was still more than $133,000 of cash stashed inside Rogers’ house. Zachary either missed it or didn’t want the risk of having to hide it somewhere. With Rogers dead, she’d inherit a great deal more from the will anyway. Newspaper accounts pegged the total at $500,000 to $750,000.

Out of the ordinary. Although the trial, which began in 1997, was no O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony sensation, it did cause a stir in Battle Creek.

“In the 1990s, we had a boatload of homicides, but most of them were drug-related,” recalled Battle Creek Enquirer crime reporter Trace Christenson during a phone interview with ForensicFilesNow. “This one [the Robert Rogers case] was different so it was a bigger deal. And forensics was starting to be a new big thing at the time.”

Sharon Zachary in court

At the trial, defense attorney John Hofman described Zachary as a caring human being. “She is afraid of blood, she is a small person, and she would not do this,” he said, according to the Battle Creek Enquirer.

Jailhouse rat. But Calhoun County prosecutor David Wallace portrayed her as a woman in the throes of greed, “like a kid in a candy store.”

Zachary’s cell mate, an embezzler named Michelle McCormick, told the court that Zachary had confessed that she and Rogers argued about money and she killed him.

It came out that Zachary had once been accused of misappropriating funds from a car dealership, according to court papers.

Feeling flush. Nicholas Batch, a lawyer who had done work for Robert Rogers, testified that he advised Rogers against selling a house to the Zacharys because they weren’t “credit worthy” — more evidence that her plans exceeded her means.

Donald Rogers in his Forensic Files interview

A witness named David Garity testified that Zachary and her husband told him they could contribute $80,000 to a business the three wanted to start, according to the Battle Creek Enquirer.

But Zachary would never get a chance to follow through on the venture.

She received a guilty verdict for first-degree murder and armed robbery.

On September 15, 1997, Circuit Court Judge Stephen Miller gave her life without parole plus 15 to 30 years.

Goodbye to you. Her son, Josh, 18, cried in the courtroom when he heard the sentence, according to a newspaper account. (By the way, Sharon Zachary was 32 years old at that time. So did she — yikes — give birth to Josh at 14?)

Sharon Zachary proclaimed her innocence after the verdict. According to the Battle Creek Enquirer:

“This will not end until the day I go home,” she said. “I think she’s home now,” Donald Rogers said a few minutes later.

In 1998, Judge Miller denied Zachary’s motion for a new trial. In 2000, a Michigan court of appeals reaffirmed her conviction.

Low-to-medium risk. Today, she resides in Huron Valley Complex in Ypsilanti. She’s probably feeling a little cramped lately, as Michigan has consolidated all female prisoners into Huron Valley, making it the state’s only facility for women.

Sharon Zachary in a mugshot

There’s no shortage of adversity at Huron Valley.

In 2016, corrections officer Lauralie Herkimer complained of dangerous conditions in the facility, including ceilings so leaky that they shorted out the lights and employees so drained from working overtime that they had trouble doing their jobs.

That same year, a prison guard was charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of 25-year-old inmate Janika Edmond.

On the bright side, the Department of Corrections has designated Zachary as Level II — on a scale of I to V — security-wise, suggesting that she has behaved herself well enough while behind razor wire.

Inflammatory situation. Incidentally, the house where she killed Robert Rogers continued to generate interest after the murder.

“There were rumors that there was more cash hidden in the house, and they had some issue with people going through the house,” Christenson said. “I don’t think they ever found anything.”

In March 2015, the property made news again.

It burned down in what newspapers described as a suspicious fire. No one was living in the house at the time.

Photo of the book Forensic Files Now
Book instores
andonline

The owner was listed as Donald Rogers.

So it looks as though Donald succeeded in supplanting Sharon Zachary as his father’s heir and received his rightful inheritance.

That’s all for this post. Until next time, cheers. RR 


Watch the Forensic Files episode on YouTube or Amazon Prime.

19 thoughts on “Sharon Zachary: Impatient Heiress”

  1. This reminds me of the ‘Penchant for Poison’ episode where Tim Scoggin poisoned the wealthy Noble sisters with the hopes of inheriting their multi million dollar estate. Unbeknownst to him (and much to his dismay when he later found out), they had not included him in their will. I think Sharon Zachary falsely believed that the investigators would never suspect her of committing the crime since she was Mr. Rogers primary caregiver.

    1. As Maynard G. Krebs would say, “Good thinkin’ good buddy.” She played the helpful “daughter he never had” so on the face of it, she wouldn’t kill him. Fortunately for justice, and for Donald Rogers, forensic investigators know better than to take things at face value.

  2. Wow. I think Sharon Zachary falsely believed that the investigators would never suspect her of committing the crime since she was Mr. Rogers primary caregiver. Greed deludes.

  3. Thanks, RR: I’ve not seen this ep. I can’t understand why she didn’t think she’d be a prime suspect (if she didn’t…) She was, and knew it, an estate beneficiary, with PoA – so that alone makes her a candidate. Furthermore, did she not consider that the ‘financial shenanigans’ would be discovered by police, either through some record of it or ‘cos Donald might have been informed by his brother and would report it during the investigation? And if all this wasn’t enough, that a record of the victim’s rescinding (or intending to) the PoA – so why? – possibly existed?

    Apparently she discounted all this as probative of her guilt in favour of a random house-breaker or the brother. But as you present the facts, no-one with a brain could have thought that they wouldn’t be in the frame, quite regardless of forensic evidence (which we can forgive her being ignorant of). Maybe it was plain ol’ desperation which clouded the (obvious) judgement that this crime was bound to backfire.

    She deserves life – not least ‘cos she seems to have been content that the brother took the wrap – thus a second ‘crime’ if he had.

    “She is afraid of blood, she is a small person, and she would not do this.” Release her now, then – we’ve got the wrong person!

  4. Someone burned this house to the ground a few years ago (2015). It is creepy when you go by there on certain nights. It gets foggy and it’s very dark. The swamp right there. There nothing else around there.

    She had all kinds of time to due the murder. The local drug dealer thing is BS thou. There’s nothing around the house. The people in that area are all farmers or blue collar workers. Everyone in town did know or heard rumors he ran around with a pocket full of cash.

  5. Michael: “Everyone in town did know or heard rumors he ran around with a pocket full of cash.” And she was banking on that the provide the alibi but was a very stupid criminal. She seems rather a bitch in her using of Roberts and hoping to frame others. This was more than egregious greed.

  6. I apologize if it sounds like I’m victim shaming but… “everyone knew he ran around with large sums of cash”? The elderly get set in their ways. My mom leaves the doors unlocked during the day and when I tell her how foolish this is, she says if someone comes in she’ll “scoot out the back.” She’s 88. How fast can one “scoot” at that age?

  7. Yowie, I’m laughin’ witya! Thanks again, RR, for your wonderful follow-ups. I wondered what she got for her cupidity and stupidity. I missed it if the episode had it. No death penalty in Michigan even back then. Premeditated murder deserves a fine sentence and they socked it to her. Life in a delapidated prison has got to hit her every day with the why-couldn’t-I-wait (or be smarter) blues.

  8. Donald appears to have had a difficult time with his adoptive father, and it probably colored his life, which seems ok enough. What could he have been with a more loving and supportive father figure? Hope he did get the inheritance and is using it wisely.
    Zachary meantime just looks crazed. She’s probably living pretty large there vis à vis the other inmates and given a wide berth due to her relative youth and proven very hands-on homicidal proclivity. 25 blows to an 80yo blind man? That certainly pegs the crazy meter. Inmates in a men’s supermax would run away screaming.

  9. I find it hard to believe the husband didn’t know she was stealing from the victim (new boat, fancy vacation etc). I wonder if he was charged with anything.

      1. One wonders this of so many cases where a married perp was stealing from the victim (of theft/fraud as well as murder) or comes into money on their suspicious death. ‘Where did the money come from, honey?’ ‘Just how can we afford the new boat?’

        Police presumably can’t prove the spouse knew – or even had reasonable reason to suspect – unlikely affluence was the proceeds of crime… but they must, frustratingly, suspect the spouse knew and thus was a party to the crime in at least not reporting it after the fact. As Mrs. Zachary had a lowly income, did Mr Z she was gifted the money – or she stole it? And if a gift, a grateful spouse might be expected to thank the donor personally – which obv didn’t happen. So yes, it’s likely Mr Z did know and disgracefully enjoyed the proceeds, even if Mrs Z had to convince him that she couldn’t return it unnoticed (if Mr Z protested – but if he was taking a stand he’s hardly go on the holiday etc the ‘dirty’ money bought).

        I as law enforcement would certainly wish to know where he thought the money for the luxuries came from – but he probably said the only thing he could: ‘She told me it was a gift from him’ (unless the old ‘I won the lottery and never showed you I had the winning ticket’ line). If spouses know or suspect, it makes them almost as bad as the perp – almost an accessory. A decent spouse would at least walk out (in the case of murder), even if they couldn’t bring themselves to report their knowledge or grave suspicion to police.

        Slightly tangentially, Denise Squire (FF: A Squire’s Riches) is the most obvious guilty (of murder) ‘innocent’ spouse who comes to mind, albeit prospectively – for what she was in on getting (but for discovery) rather than already got. I don’t know why she wasn’t charged as an accessory…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: