The Thomas Cook Report: What It Might Say and Why It Matters

Thomas Cook on the left, Mayor Joe Hogsett in the middle, Ryan Mears on the left.

By Hoosier Enquirer

Indianapolis, IN; 4:25pm EST, May 29th, 2025

Indianapolis is bracing for the release of the Thomas Cook Report, the culmination of a City-County Council investigation into allegations of misconduct by Thomas Cook, former chief deputy mayor and a close ally of Mayor Joe Hogsett. The report, expected to address serious accusations of sexual harassment and abuse of power, has sparked intense speculation about its findings—and whether it will shield the mayor to protect his political image. Here’s what the report might say, based on the swirling controversy, and why it could have lasting implications for the city.

Who Is Thomas Cook?

Thomas Cook served under Mayor Joe Hogsett for nearly a decade, rising to the role of chief deputy mayor, the second-highest position in Indianapolis city government. A trusted confidant, Cook was a central figure in the Hogsett administration until his resignation in 2023, prompted by allegations of inappropriate behavior toward three younger women who worked under him: Lauren Roberts, a junior-level staffer; Caroline Ellert, an intern; and a third woman who has chosen to remain anonymous.

The women’s accounts, detailed in articles by the Hoosier Enquirer, IndyStar, and Mirror Indy, paint a disturbing picture. They allege Cook engaged in grooming behavior—using praise, poetry, gifts, and promises of career advancement to manipulate and pressure them into unwanted sexual encounters. According to RAINN, a national anti-violence advocacy group, grooming involves deliberate manipulation to gain a victim’s trust and coerce them into abuse. These accusations led the City-County Council to form an investigative committee to examine Cook’s conduct and the administration’s response.

What the Report Might Say

While the contents of the Thomas Cook Report remain under wraps, several factors suggest it may lean toward protecting Mayor Hogsett. The Hogsett administration has hired Faegre Drinker attorneys, including former cabinet member Lauren Giffin, to provide “legal advice to the city regarding its cooperation with and response to the City-County Council investigation,” according to the contract. Giffin’s involvement has raised eyebrows, particularly among council members like Brian Mowery, a southside Republican on the investigative committee, who sees the rehiring of a Hogsett loyalist as a potential conflict of interest.

Given the administration’s legal maneuvering, the report is likely to exonerate Hogsett, claiming he was unaware of Cook’s alleged misconduct. This narrative would serve to shield the mayor from political fallout and potential lawsuits or settlements with the accusers. The report might emphasize that Cook acted independently, without Hogsett’s knowledge, and highlight procedural reforms to prevent future incidents. Such findings would align with the administration’s efforts to distance Hogsett from the scandal while avoiding liability.

However, this outcome risks clashing with public perception. Many in Indianapolis believe Hogsett, given his close working relationship with Cook, must have known about the allegations—or at least turned a blind eye. The mayor’s public stance of ignorance has been met with skepticism, with critics arguing that his long tenure alongside Cook makes it implausible he was entirely unaware. As one local resident put it, “The town knows Hogsett’s no saint—he’s been dodging accountability forever.”

The Political and Social Stakes

The Thomas Cook Report is more than a bureaucratic document; it’s a litmus test for trust in Indianapolis’ leadership. If the report clears Hogsett without addressing the systemic issues that allowed Cook’s alleged behavior to persist, it could deepen public distrust. The accusations against Cook—abusing his authority to target vulnerable junior staff and interns—point to a broader culture of power imbalances within the administration. The women’s stories, corroborated by their separate but consistent accounts, underscore the need for accountability, not just for Cook but for those who enabled or overlooked his actions.

Councilor Mowery and others on the investigative committee have expressed concerns about the administration’s transparency. The decision to bring back Giffin, a former insider, only fuels suspicions of a cover-up. If the report glosses over these issues, it could embolden critics who see Hogsett as prioritizing his image over justice for the accusers.

Hogsett’s Defense and Public Perception

Throughout the investigation, Mayor Hogsett has maintained a carefully crafted image of detachment, insisting he had no knowledge of Cook’s behavior. His administration has pointed to the investigative process as evidence of cooperation, while legal contracts suggest a focus on limiting liability. Yet, the court of public opinion is less forgiving. Whispers of Hogsett’s personal conduct, including unverified claims of excessive drinking, have long circulated in Indianapolis. While these remain rumors, they contribute to a narrative of a mayor out of touch with the city’s needs.

The report’s release could either quell or amplify these criticisms. A whitewash that exonerates Hogsett without addressing the victims’ experiences risks alienating residents and emboldening calls for reform. Conversely, a report that acknowledges systemic failures and holds the administration accountable could restore some faith—but it would require Hogsett to confront uncomfortable truths about his leadership.

What’s Next?

As Indianapolis awaits the Thomas Cook Report, the city is at a crossroads. The document could either pave the way for healing and reform or deepen divisions between the administration and its constituents. For Lauren Roberts, Caroline Ellert, and the anonymous third accuser, the report represents a chance for validation and justice. For Hogsett, it’s a test of his ability to navigate a scandal that threatens his legacy.

The Hoosier Enquirer will continue to follow this story, pressing for transparency and accountability. Whatever the report says, one thing is clear: Indianapolis deserves answers, not excuses. The truth about Thomas Cook—and those who enabled him—cannot stay buried forever.