An interesting and timely article was published by The Independent this morning.
The head of Uber suggested that if the background of reporters were uncovered, you will always find the reason they lie. Of course it didn't really make the news until Ashton Kutcher agreed and Tweeted on it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ashton-kutcher-backs-uber-execs-call-to-expose-lives-of-female-reporters-what-is-so-wrong-about-digging-up-dirt-on-shady-journalist-9872418.html
Which brings us to the point. On November 17, 2014 there was a sudden barrage of press releases sent to thousands of news outlets all over the world. Apparently the opinion of a Bury St Edmunds woman named Camille Berriman was the push that "proves" the allegation of Scott Rogers' involvement in pedophilia are true and was worthy of a media blitz.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/slain-tv-host-turned-scandalous-past-26975327
Now Camille, our source for the story, claims she was a student of the Suffolk Academy of Dance and Performing Arts when Mr Rogers was a teacher, but admits she has no first hand knowledge of pedophilia activity, nor was she a witness to any, but she now feels that after all the press coverage in Bury St Edmund's paper, the Bury Free Press, that he MUST be guilty.
Do you know why this statement from Camille Berriman is especially shocking? ....Because she an editor at The Bury Free Press.
There's more:
She's also one of the reporters who wrote the articles about the Scott Rogers/Hodgkinson murder. She also has clout when it comes to preferred publication of "letters to the editor" in the Bury Free Press, she is the editor and she also writes the letters under the name Camille Ives. Source -> Reporter -> Editor -> Publisher -> and fawning Public, this shady lady has it covered. Oh yes, she's also an actress and dancer. (Google it)
So you see this is a one lady circle jerk, and she's used to doing it that way. She seems to have special inside information obtained from the Iberville Sheriff's Office that was not released to the public. The inside information is as fake as her news stories.
anniehystamine@gmail.com
What's holding up those forensic tests?
Well, we're still waiting.
On October 7, 2014 Major Ronnie Hebert sent us a gem of a tale.:
http://theadvocate.com/news/10466523-123/evidence-shows-scott-rogers-hodgkinson
According to Hebert's "expert" opinion, only knowing both men were shot with the same gun proved it was a murder suicide. This could not be further from the truth. At no time in the recent history of crime scene investigation has being shot by the same gun constituted a murder- suicide conclusion.....
..... gunpowder residue and pattern do. So why report only one small aspect of gun testing and leave all the important stuff out?
Also notice the wording Major Hebert chose to use in the press release to the Advocate. These words were chosen to stop later questions by misleading readers to believe this was cut and dry.
Two men were unable to testify at a hearing that was convened for reasons we do not know, the Sheriff couldn't stick to one, or even two stories, so we really do not know WHO testified and who didn't. There were some statements alluding to Rogers being the target of investigation, but none of this could be confirmed. Surely some people in the Sheriff's Office were going to get their reputations sullied if a different story was revealed.
On October 7, 2014 Major Ronnie Hebert sent us a gem of a tale.:
http://theadvocate.com/news/10466523-123/evidence-shows-scott-rogers-hodgkinson
According to Hebert's "expert" opinion, only knowing both men were shot with the same gun proved it was a murder suicide. This could not be further from the truth. At no time in the recent history of crime scene investigation has being shot by the same gun constituted a murder- suicide conclusion.....
..... gunpowder residue and pattern do. So why report only one small aspect of gun testing and leave all the important stuff out?
Also notice the wording Major Hebert chose to use in the press release to the Advocate. These words were chosen to stop later questions by misleading readers to believe this was cut and dry.
Two men were unable to testify at a hearing that was convened for reasons we do not know, the Sheriff couldn't stick to one, or even two stories, so we really do not know WHO testified and who didn't. There were some statements alluding to Rogers being the target of investigation, but none of this could be confirmed. Surely some people in the Sheriff's Office were going to get their reputations sullied if a different story was revealed.
Podcast of Stuart's call to the Jim Engster Show
Here is the audio where Stuart tells of his sexual relationship with Scott Rogers that started when he was 12 years old and continued from then until Rogers' death. It sounds preposterous because it is. Stuart lied about everything, and only has himself to blame for leaving digital proof. I wonder who he'll throw under the bus for this one?
This is where the podcast is located:
http://golsutigers.org/JES_082814.mp3
This is where the podcast is located:
http://golsutigers.org/JES_082814.mp3
Immigration and common sense.
The quickest way to to substantiate, or quell this smut fest was for the Sheriff to contact the Department of Immigration. He didn't seem to have a problem involving them when he thought he could throw a zinger on Rogers didn't he, so why didn't he wait for further confirmation on Stuart's claims?
By a simple communication Stassi would have known when "Stuart" and Hodgkinson came to the US instead of stirring a shit storm of innuendo. Even a short internet search revealed he came over much much later. Even so, there would be an official record that shows when they arrived, if they got an H1-B Visa, if they received a green card, and eventually citizenship without restrictions.
Another quick search shows that 1stco, Inc. did petition the Immigration Department for both H1-B Visas and green cards within a proper timeframe for 2 employees who came here in 2001.
http://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa-Sponsor/1stco/1278_Visa.htm
Why would anyone who had been here for 14 years need to marry a citizen to stay inthe US? At this point he would only have to file a naturalization form and pay $600, way cheaper than a trip to Vegas and a marriage.
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/article/chapter4.pdf
By a simple communication Stassi would have known when "Stuart" and Hodgkinson came to the US instead of stirring a shit storm of innuendo. Even a short internet search revealed he came over much much later. Even so, there would be an official record that shows when they arrived, if they got an H1-B Visa, if they received a green card, and eventually citizenship without restrictions.
Another quick search shows that 1stco, Inc. did petition the Immigration Department for both H1-B Visas and green cards within a proper timeframe for 2 employees who came here in 2001.
http://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa-Sponsor/1stco/1278_Visa.htm
Why would anyone who had been here for 14 years need to marry a citizen to stay inthe US? At this point he would only have to file a naturalization form and pay $600, way cheaper than a trip to Vegas and a marriage.
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/article/chapter4.pdf
Where is the only "witness"?
Is the main witness really in Britain? That's what he's putting on all of his blogs anyway. If he were a principal to the case and certain aspects of the case are still pending such as forensic testing on the gun and suicide note, he should have been held here. Who let him go overseas? Is he still here?
During the time the Sheriff claimed Stuart was in "federal protection" he had phone access, and even called a popular radio show to suddenly lament his childhood ordeal. It didn't go over well with listeners according to commentary on news article relating to the podcast. He is pushing 40 and thought the Stockholm Syndrome approach would work to keep him out of trouble, after all, he would have gotten hoisted by his own petard with the story he told. His continued online and phone activity was a dead giveaway, this is just not done when you are under federal protection, you lose your phone and internet. So now we have to assume he was never under any sort of protective custody.
....but Stassi's narrative is that Stuart was in "federal protective custody" for the 2 days prior to court hearing and prior to the deaths, but we can plainly see he was not. So where was Stuart during those 2 days? Who was the caller that reported hearing the last shot?
During the time the Sheriff claimed Stuart was in "federal protection" he had phone access, and even called a popular radio show to suddenly lament his childhood ordeal. It didn't go over well with listeners according to commentary on news article relating to the podcast. He is pushing 40 and thought the Stockholm Syndrome approach would work to keep him out of trouble, after all, he would have gotten hoisted by his own petard with the story he told. His continued online and phone activity was a dead giveaway, this is just not done when you are under federal protection, you lose your phone and internet. So now we have to assume he was never under any sort of protective custody.
....but Stassi's narrative is that Stuart was in "federal protective custody" for the 2 days prior to court hearing and prior to the deaths, but we can plainly see he was not. So where was Stuart during those 2 days? Who was the caller that reported hearing the last shot?
Entry to the crime scene.
This is what Stassi told the East Anglian Daily Times:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/suffolk_us_doors_to_murder_victim_scott_rogers_immaculate_home_had_been_barricaded_as_he_prepared_for_the_end_says_sheriff_1_3755012
"Police said the front and back doors of Mr Rogers’ home had been barricaded when they arrived.
Sheriff Stassi added: “Inside it was immaculate. The home showed signs he thought the end was near. I just think he though the end was near and his past had finally caught up with him. He was going to be exposed. I think he thought ‘this is it’."
Now this is strange, because he already fed us this:
http://www.wafb.com/story/26385794/sheriff-tv-personality-scott-rogers-killed-by-son-in-law-in-murder-attempted-suicide
Deputies were called to the scene on Daisy Avenue at 12:40 p.m.
"We received a call that shots were heard as somebody was entering the residence," the Sheriff said. "On follow up, it was described as a murder-suicide scene and we're investigating it as a homicide until it's determined what we have here."
So was it barricaded, or not? Sheriff Stassi states the doors were still barricaded when police arrived, but first stated that the caller who reported the crime had entered the house. How is a barricaded house immaculate? Scott Rogers' home was famously immaculate, always. In the case of moving heavy objects and propping them against doors, it would be quite the mess and would be described so.
Let's break this down.
Stassi reported this tidbit on September 3 only to the local Bury St Edmunds paper,no mention of it here. Why not? This was probably an amendment to the former story to ensure that only the two dead/wounded could be in the house theoretically, a barricade can only be made from the inside. Was someone else in the house when the two were shot? If the Sheriff's initial statements are correct, and a third party in the house called authorities when the last shot was heard, .....we have a new suspect.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/suffolk_us_doors_to_murder_victim_scott_rogers_immaculate_home_had_been_barricaded_as_he_prepared_for_the_end_says_sheriff_1_3755012
"Police said the front and back doors of Mr Rogers’ home had been barricaded when they arrived.
Sheriff Stassi added: “Inside it was immaculate. The home showed signs he thought the end was near. I just think he though the end was near and his past had finally caught up with him. He was going to be exposed. I think he thought ‘this is it’."
Now this is strange, because he already fed us this:
http://www.wafb.com/story/26385794/sheriff-tv-personality-scott-rogers-killed-by-son-in-law-in-murder-attempted-suicide
Deputies were called to the scene on Daisy Avenue at 12:40 p.m.
"We received a call that shots were heard as somebody was entering the residence," the Sheriff said. "On follow up, it was described as a murder-suicide scene and we're investigating it as a homicide until it's determined what we have here."
So was it barricaded, or not? Sheriff Stassi states the doors were still barricaded when police arrived, but first stated that the caller who reported the crime had entered the house. How is a barricaded house immaculate? Scott Rogers' home was famously immaculate, always. In the case of moving heavy objects and propping them against doors, it would be quite the mess and would be described so.
Let's break this down.
Stassi reported this tidbit on September 3 only to the local Bury St Edmunds paper,no mention of it here. Why not? This was probably an amendment to the former story to ensure that only the two dead/wounded could be in the house theoretically, a barricade can only be made from the inside. Was someone else in the house when the two were shot? If the Sheriff's initial statements are correct, and a third party in the house called authorities when the last shot was heard, .....we have a new suspect.
Marketing a messy exit.
http://www.wafb.com/story/26385794/sheriff-tv-personality-scott-rogers-killed-by-son-in-law-in-murder-attempted-suicide
"Rogers' attorney confirms that the television personality was in the midst of a legal battle but would not provide specifics. Sources confirmed that Rogers' daughter was testifying before a federal grand jury Wednesday in matters related to her father. Deputies were sent to the courthouse to notify her of the death.
U.S. Attorney Walt Green said Department of Justice guidelines prevent him from speaking about grand jury matters and he could not confirm or deny that any proceedings were taking place.
Workers at the Around Town studios located inside Cortana Mall say they were instructed not to speak about the case or the future of the studio."
We will look at the strange and somewhat non existent details of the hearing later.
Fellow employees, neighbors, and friends of Scott Rogers and Mathew Hodkinson were told to keep quiet about the case, which was no real problem at that time, they were still numb from the news that two people with whom they worked closely were gone, and they were now unemployed. Yep, that's going to hit you in several ways. But If the Justice Department said there is to be no dissemination of details while the investigation was ongoing, why was the Iberville Parish Sheriff up on a soapbox behaving like a one man publicist for the case he was assigned to investigate? Did he take advantage of the hush order to quiet anyone that would have countered his stories? Was Hodgkinson wrongly accused of killing Rogers and then trying to commit suicide? Slick but underhanded marketing move on behalf of the Sheriff.
To be clear, the law mandate that even though a citizen is told to hush to maintain integrity in an investigation, that citizen is also compelled to speak out if they detect mishandling or an attempt to mislead an investigation. These complains are to be brought to the State Attorney General's office.
"Rogers' attorney confirms that the television personality was in the midst of a legal battle but would not provide specifics. Sources confirmed that Rogers' daughter was testifying before a federal grand jury Wednesday in matters related to her father. Deputies were sent to the courthouse to notify her of the death.
U.S. Attorney Walt Green said Department of Justice guidelines prevent him from speaking about grand jury matters and he could not confirm or deny that any proceedings were taking place.
Workers at the Around Town studios located inside Cortana Mall say they were instructed not to speak about the case or the future of the studio."
We will look at the strange and somewhat non existent details of the hearing later.
Fellow employees, neighbors, and friends of Scott Rogers and Mathew Hodkinson were told to keep quiet about the case, which was no real problem at that time, they were still numb from the news that two people with whom they worked closely were gone, and they were now unemployed. Yep, that's going to hit you in several ways. But If the Justice Department said there is to be no dissemination of details while the investigation was ongoing, why was the Iberville Parish Sheriff up on a soapbox behaving like a one man publicist for the case he was assigned to investigate? Did he take advantage of the hush order to quiet anyone that would have countered his stories? Was Hodgkinson wrongly accused of killing Rogers and then trying to commit suicide? Slick but underhanded marketing move on behalf of the Sheriff.
To be clear, the law mandate that even though a citizen is told to hush to maintain integrity in an investigation, that citizen is also compelled to speak out if they detect mishandling or an attempt to mislead an investigation. These complains are to be brought to the State Attorney General's office.
Time of Death
Oct. 16, 2014
It's important to note that Deputies were called to the scene on Daisy Avenue at 12:40 p.m.
http://www.wbrz.com/news/the-scott-rogers-case/
An autopsy was performed sometime after Rogers' body was removed from the home and Thursday when authorities released he was killed with a single gunshot wound to the head and was found under the covers of his bed half clothed. The report also said Roger's body was stiff when it was found, indicating Rogers had been dead for a while.
http://www.people.com/article/scott-rogers-murder-suicide-baton-rouge-tv-host
On Aug. 27, Kimberly and Stewart were at the courthouse preparing to testify. Hodgkinson had not yet been summoned, so he stayed home. Kimberly was on the stand – and Stewart in the wings – when news of the shooting broke. The proceedings were immediately terminated. That's the kind of relationship they had." .........
"We think that some time that morning, [Hodgkinson and Rogers] prayed together a little bit, then they decided that when the grand jury finished hearing testimony, the jig was going to be up for them," Stassi says."I think Scott had control over Mathew enough to have him pull the trigger on him, then turn it on himself. That's the kind of relationship they had."
http://www.wafb.com/story/26385794/sheriff-tv-personality-scott-rogers-killed-by-son-in-law-in-murder-attempted-suicide
"We received a call that shots were heard as somebody was entering the residence," the Sheriff said. "On follow up, it was described as a murder-suicide scene and we're investigating it as a homicide until it's determined what we have here."
http://www.wbrz.com/news/sheriff-rogers-son-in-law-were-lovers/
Detectives believe Hodgkinson left the hearing, went to Rogers' home in St. Gabriel, and shot him. Deputies said Hodgkinson then shot himself in the head, but survived and is on life support at a local hospital.
_________________________________________________
So which scenario happened? Now please understand that all these accounts of the shooting came from the same source, Sheriff Brett Stassi.
Did Hodgkins testify at the trial, go home and shoot Rogers? But how does that explain Rogers' body already in a state of rigor mortis which occurs roughly 8 hours after death?
Why did Stassi change the story several days later in his interview with People Magazine on Sept. 6? Did he tweak the details to fit the timeline he fed the media? His latest version was that Hodgkinson stayed home and was not yet subpoenaed..... so who heard the shot that inevitably was the suicide of Hodgkinson? In this scenario Rogers had to have been killed in the wee hours of the morning and Hodgkinson decided to take his own life at around 12:40 pm, when the caller reported hearing the shot.
Then of course there's something that even the media took notice.....
..... in less than 10 hours minute details of not only the murder but a complete , but unverified backstory was sent out in press releases from the Sheriff's Office. Whispers circulated that Sheriff Stassi might be a little bit more involved than just an investigator.
It's important to note that Deputies were called to the scene on Daisy Avenue at 12:40 p.m.
http://www.wbrz.com/news/the-scott-rogers-case/
An autopsy was performed sometime after Rogers' body was removed from the home and Thursday when authorities released he was killed with a single gunshot wound to the head and was found under the covers of his bed half clothed. The report also said Roger's body was stiff when it was found, indicating Rogers had been dead for a while.
http://www.people.com/article/scott-rogers-murder-suicide-baton-rouge-tv-host
On Aug. 27, Kimberly and Stewart were at the courthouse preparing to testify. Hodgkinson had not yet been summoned, so he stayed home. Kimberly was on the stand – and Stewart in the wings – when news of the shooting broke. The proceedings were immediately terminated. That's the kind of relationship they had." .........
"We think that some time that morning, [Hodgkinson and Rogers] prayed together a little bit, then they decided that when the grand jury finished hearing testimony, the jig was going to be up for them," Stassi says."I think Scott had control over Mathew enough to have him pull the trigger on him, then turn it on himself. That's the kind of relationship they had."
http://www.wafb.com/story/26385794/sheriff-tv-personality-scott-rogers-killed-by-son-in-law-in-murder-attempted-suicide
"We received a call that shots were heard as somebody was entering the residence," the Sheriff said. "On follow up, it was described as a murder-suicide scene and we're investigating it as a homicide until it's determined what we have here."
http://www.wbrz.com/news/sheriff-rogers-son-in-law-were-lovers/
Detectives believe Hodgkinson left the hearing, went to Rogers' home in St. Gabriel, and shot him. Deputies said Hodgkinson then shot himself in the head, but survived and is on life support at a local hospital.
_________________________________________________
So which scenario happened? Now please understand that all these accounts of the shooting came from the same source, Sheriff Brett Stassi.
Did Hodgkins testify at the trial, go home and shoot Rogers? But how does that explain Rogers' body already in a state of rigor mortis which occurs roughly 8 hours after death?
Why did Stassi change the story several days later in his interview with People Magazine on Sept. 6? Did he tweak the details to fit the timeline he fed the media? His latest version was that Hodgkinson stayed home and was not yet subpoenaed..... so who heard the shot that inevitably was the suicide of Hodgkinson? In this scenario Rogers had to have been killed in the wee hours of the morning and Hodgkinson decided to take his own life at around 12:40 pm, when the caller reported hearing the shot.
Then of course there's something that even the media took notice.....
..... in less than 10 hours minute details of not only the murder but a complete , but unverified backstory was sent out in press releases from the Sheriff's Office. Whispers circulated that Sheriff Stassi might be a little bit more involved than just an investigator.
The Suicide Note(?)
Oct. 17, 2014
There was such confusion over Sheriff Stassi's initial statements in the European papers, both the Guardian and The Independent said Stassi must have 2 notes. His final statement claimed only one was found on a bedside table. Then how did he quote from a second note that did not exist?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/scott-rogers-baton-rouge-tv-host-was-due-to-face-a-grand-trial-before-he-was-allegedly-shot-by-soninlaw-and-lover-9704711.html
"On Friday, sources told Chief Investigator Chris Nakamoto a note was found on a nightstand next to the bed where Rogers was killed reading: “I can't live without my kids," while another read: "They broke our happy, loving home. They do not get to take Scott as well." The author of the notes has not yet been verified."
The day after Stassi made this statement, his communications department sent something quite different, A note purportedly written by Hodgkinson instead. Now that was from left field.
________________________________
Now we will talk about procurement procedure of chemically sensitive evidence and what not to do with it. Never photocopy it. Many crime blogs grabbed hold of this right away due to it's blatant stupidity. The Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office sent a photocopy of the suicide note ,less than 18 hours after the initial report, along with a promise to verify it as genuine and run DNA tests. To date this has not been done.
Why would a SHERIFF that was supposed to be conducting an investigation sabotage the evidence? Why would he be more interested in publicising the "evidence" before he knew it was genuine?
http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/08/suicide_note_found_in_scott_ro.html
Sheriff Stassi stated that this was the note in it's entirety. He also stated that it was the note alone that determined the "murder - suicide conclusion. It seemed to be a neatly packaged summary, but didn't explain anything at all. If it were a pact, why wouldn't a public person like Scott Rogers leave a note instead of Hodgkinson since the Sheriff's narrative said all actions surrounded Rogers' decisions? Verification through the content of the note would depend on what the grand jury hearing was all about. but since there is a rush to hide the details of the hearing, only the Attorney General could intervene at this point.
The most unsettling statement Sheriff made in association to the letter was made to People Magazine :
http://www.people.com/article/scott-rogers-murder-suicide-baton-rouge-tv-host
"When sheriff's deputies arrived at Rogers's home, they found a note allegedly scrawled by Hodgkinson that read: "They broke our happy loving home. They do not get to take Scott too." (Authorities are awaiting the results of DNA tests on the note, as well as ballistics reports on the handgun.
"We think that some time that morning, [Hodgkinson and Rogers] prayed together a little bit, then they decided that when the grand jury finished hearing testimony, the jig was going to be up for them," Stassi says. "
Now, that's interesting. How did he come up with that detail if the only two people that were able to give him this detail never spoke, and the note did not mention it? 10 days after the fact and the narrative is shifting suspicion.
There was such confusion over Sheriff Stassi's initial statements in the European papers, both the Guardian and The Independent said Stassi must have 2 notes. His final statement claimed only one was found on a bedside table. Then how did he quote from a second note that did not exist?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/scott-rogers-baton-rouge-tv-host-was-due-to-face-a-grand-trial-before-he-was-allegedly-shot-by-soninlaw-and-lover-9704711.html
"On Friday, sources told Chief Investigator Chris Nakamoto a note was found on a nightstand next to the bed where Rogers was killed reading: “I can't live without my kids," while another read: "They broke our happy, loving home. They do not get to take Scott as well." The author of the notes has not yet been verified."
The day after Stassi made this statement, his communications department sent something quite different, A note purportedly written by Hodgkinson instead. Now that was from left field.
________________________________
Now we will talk about procurement procedure of chemically sensitive evidence and what not to do with it. Never photocopy it. Many crime blogs grabbed hold of this right away due to it's blatant stupidity. The Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office sent a photocopy of the suicide note ,less than 18 hours after the initial report, along with a promise to verify it as genuine and run DNA tests. To date this has not been done.
Why would a SHERIFF that was supposed to be conducting an investigation sabotage the evidence? Why would he be more interested in publicising the "evidence" before he knew it was genuine?
http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/08/suicide_note_found_in_scott_ro.html
Sheriff Stassi stated that this was the note in it's entirety. He also stated that it was the note alone that determined the "murder - suicide conclusion. It seemed to be a neatly packaged summary, but didn't explain anything at all. If it were a pact, why wouldn't a public person like Scott Rogers leave a note instead of Hodgkinson since the Sheriff's narrative said all actions surrounded Rogers' decisions? Verification through the content of the note would depend on what the grand jury hearing was all about. but since there is a rush to hide the details of the hearing, only the Attorney General could intervene at this point.
The most unsettling statement Sheriff made in association to the letter was made to People Magazine :
http://www.people.com/article/scott-rogers-murder-suicide-baton-rouge-tv-host
"When sheriff's deputies arrived at Rogers's home, they found a note allegedly scrawled by Hodgkinson that read: "They broke our happy loving home. They do not get to take Scott too." (Authorities are awaiting the results of DNA tests on the note, as well as ballistics reports on the handgun.
"We think that some time that morning, [Hodgkinson and Rogers] prayed together a little bit, then they decided that when the grand jury finished hearing testimony, the jig was going to be up for them," Stassi says. "
Now, that's interesting. How did he come up with that detail if the only two people that were able to give him this detail never spoke, and the note did not mention it? 10 days after the fact and the narrative is shifting suspicion.
Stuart - Stassi's "boy wonder".
Oct. 19, 2014
For now, let me explain who "Stewart" is. Stewart claims he was a resident of the same residence where Rogers and Hodgkinson lived, he also claims to be an employee at the same place of employment, 1stco. He called in during WRKF's Jim Engster Show (podcast) and volunteered all this information himself. Stewart stated that he was raped by Rogers since the age of 13 and it continued until his Roger's death. This podcast has since been removed from The Jim Engster Show's website archives. If anyone has a copy of the podcast, please feel free to drop me an email. Here is the summary from the Nancy Grace website.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/09/12/radio-hosts-alleged-secret-life-revealed-after-murder
UPDATE: audio is now here:
http://golsutigers.org/JES_082814.mp3
Stewart, or shall we say Stuart, which is the correct spelling, was the only link to claims of pedophilia in this case. I don't know why there is an effort to keep the identity of this guy secret as he is engaged in a plethora of internet postings and self promotion. He also has left an interesting path for those that are investigating his claims, the internet is forever and you can't go back and erase it. Not good for Stuart, or Stassi's narrative.
It seems Stuart has a talent for reinvention while maintaining pertinent aspect of digitally identifiable information. In spite of his claims of being raped for 23 years it appears he was in another country until 2001. Why didn't Stassi get the documentation from the Immigration Department and send THAT to the press? It also appears he applied for a work visa. So we know Stuart lied big time in this next story.:
http://www.wtoc.com/story/26397744/two-men-accuse-scott-rogers-of-sexual-abuse
"One of the victims, who is now in his 30s, said he met Rogers at his dance school in England when he was 12 years old. He told Engster he was intimately involved with Rogers.
'This began when I was 13 and increased in frequency(sp) all the way until I was 18 and then continued through last week," said the caller."On some level, I think he raised me from when I was 12 or 13 years old and I think that on some level gets in you.'
The caller said he followed Rogers to the U.S. when he moved and lived with him at his home in St. Gabriel until last week. When asked why he continued to follow him despite his allegations of sexual abuse, the caller said "It's all I've known for 23 years."
But.......Here's bio Stuart has on his Google+:
"1stCo
Production Manager, 2001 - 2014
I headed up a web and design division at 1stCo for my first 5 years in the USA then transitioned into the position of Production Manager. In that role I spent a decade overseeing the creative output of the company, building and running a 6,000 sq ft television studio, and creating video content that included full weekly and monthly cable shows, training programs, and video for distribution online."
That's not the 23 years in America he was hoping to sell us.
Then on 10/16/2014 he added this gem, he suddenly created a Google+ community devoted to the beautiful Bury St Edmunds region, possibly to coaborate the narrative. He wrote this bio :
"I am a photographer. I grew up in Bury St Edmunds. I’ve been away, traveling all over the world for the last 20 years. Since I came home in 2014 I have walked my old stomping grounds with my camera and rediscovered one of England’s prettiest small towns. I want to share how I see Bury St Edmunds and connect with people who think, like me that this town is beautiful."
Now, that was found with 40 minutes of searching info Stuart himself put out in the WWW. Why couldn't Sheriff Stassi find it in all the time he said he had said he had spoken to Stuart? Did he already know Stuart's claims were made up? Did both Stuart and Stassi have something to lose if the grand jury heard testimony?
UPDATE:
As of 10/21/2014, Stuart has removed the incriminating biography from his Google +.
For now, let me explain who "Stewart" is. Stewart claims he was a resident of the same residence where Rogers and Hodgkinson lived, he also claims to be an employee at the same place of employment, 1stco. He called in during WRKF's Jim Engster Show (podcast) and volunteered all this information himself. Stewart stated that he was raped by Rogers since the age of 13 and it continued until his Roger's death. This podcast has since been removed from The Jim Engster Show's website archives. If anyone has a copy of the podcast, please feel free to drop me an email. Here is the summary from the Nancy Grace website.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/09/12/radio-hosts-alleged-secret-life-revealed-after-murder
UPDATE: audio is now here:
http://golsutigers.org/JES_082814.mp3
Stewart, or shall we say Stuart, which is the correct spelling, was the only link to claims of pedophilia in this case. I don't know why there is an effort to keep the identity of this guy secret as he is engaged in a plethora of internet postings and self promotion. He also has left an interesting path for those that are investigating his claims, the internet is forever and you can't go back and erase it. Not good for Stuart, or Stassi's narrative.
It seems Stuart has a talent for reinvention while maintaining pertinent aspect of digitally identifiable information. In spite of his claims of being raped for 23 years it appears he was in another country until 2001. Why didn't Stassi get the documentation from the Immigration Department and send THAT to the press? It also appears he applied for a work visa. So we know Stuart lied big time in this next story.:
http://www.wtoc.com/story/26397744/two-men-accuse-scott-rogers-of-sexual-abuse
"One of the victims, who is now in his 30s, said he met Rogers at his dance school in England when he was 12 years old. He told Engster he was intimately involved with Rogers.
'This began when I was 13 and increased in frequency(sp) all the way until I was 18 and then continued through last week," said the caller."On some level, I think he raised me from when I was 12 or 13 years old and I think that on some level gets in you.'
The caller said he followed Rogers to the U.S. when he moved and lived with him at his home in St. Gabriel until last week. When asked why he continued to follow him despite his allegations of sexual abuse, the caller said "It's all I've known for 23 years."
But.......Here's bio Stuart has on his Google+:
"1stCo
Production Manager, 2001 - 2014
I headed up a web and design division at 1stCo for my first 5 years in the USA then transitioned into the position of Production Manager. In that role I spent a decade overseeing the creative output of the company, building and running a 6,000 sq ft television studio, and creating video content that included full weekly and monthly cable shows, training programs, and video for distribution online."
That's not the 23 years in America he was hoping to sell us.
Then on 10/16/2014 he added this gem, he suddenly created a Google+ community devoted to the beautiful Bury St Edmunds region, possibly to coaborate the narrative. He wrote this bio :
"I am a photographer. I grew up in Bury St Edmunds. I’ve been away, traveling all over the world for the last 20 years. Since I came home in 2014 I have walked my old stomping grounds with my camera and rediscovered one of England’s prettiest small towns. I want to share how I see Bury St Edmunds and connect with people who think, like me that this town is beautiful."
Now, that was found with 40 minutes of searching info Stuart himself put out in the WWW. Why couldn't Sheriff Stassi find it in all the time he said he had said he had spoken to Stuart? Did he already know Stuart's claims were made up? Did both Stuart and Stassi have something to lose if the grand jury heard testimony?
UPDATE:
As of 10/21/2014, Stuart has removed the incriminating biography from his Google +.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)