The Around Town Show host Scott Rogers, and producer, Mathew Hodgkinson died as a result of gunshot wounds to the head. Sheriff Brett Stassi of the Iberville Sheriff's Office deliberately hampered the investigation into their deaths. On August 27, 2014,the day they were scheduled to testify at a grand jury hearing, Rogers was found dead at his residence while Hodgkinson was found unconscious from what was called an attempted suicide. Why Stassi chose such a high profile case to try manipulating the information he sent to the press remains a mystery. I will post the press releases and statements Sheriff Brett Stassi sent to the media, both local and European. I will only post information already publicly and voluntarily published by Sheriff Brett Stassi and other principals to the investigation.
anniehystamine@gmail.com
Rannah Gray, Her Book, and the Continuation of a Contractual Circle Jerk.
Making the publicity rounds is necessary for an author to sell her book. TV, radio, print, a public relations expert knows she has to hit every form of media to make a publication visible. What's cannot be ignored is that the author seems to be relegated to an ever shrinking (or intentionally small) circle of public relations "friends" that are interconnected by multiple threads. The same people that had given her a soapbox to publicize her book are also the very same people that backed her narrative in the initial news reports. Jim Engster, Darla O'Conner, Stuart Poulton, all jumped on the opportunity to smear the man they all fawned over, or directly profited from just one month earlier.
Now you have to remember, that most of the names listed below were involved in not just creating the pretext to have Scott Rogers and Mathew Hodgkinson investigated, but were also responsible for crafting the press releases that were sent from the Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office, ....then the SAME cast of characters gave locals the narrative through talk media, .... then continued to be involved in books about it.
Rannah Gray, Kip Holden and these others DEPEND on contractual government grants to fund their lifestyles, some hope to use the funds to better theirs. There is no doubt that it was arranged for Gray to get incentives for writing the book as well as her cohorts.
The other Who's Who in no particular order (excluding Rannah Gray):
Stuart Poulton - One of the "sources" Rannah Gray used for her book. He is the 36 year old man that called the Jim Engster show and made the dubious claim that he was brought to America by Rogers when he was just 13 and was continually raped by Rogers up until his death, his resume dispels this account. He was employed by Rogers at 1stco, Inc. It was discovered that in 2013, almost a year before the date of Rogers' death, Stuart Poulton had planned to start a competing company, The Pro Gap, nearby. It is unknown if David Nall, another former 1stCo, Inc employee that joined The Pro Gap was in on the plan from the beginning or was just hooked unaware.
Jim Engster - One of the few media hosts who interviewed Rannah Gray about the publication of her book. At the time of Roger's death, he was a radio show host at WRKF in Baton Rouge, he has since moved to a talk radio station 107.3. The day after the news broke of Rogers' death Jim Engster invited Stuart Poulton to call in to the radio show under a cloak of anonymity and play the victim, he only introduced himself as "Stuart". Another anonymous male joined in on this call and made the same rape claim, but he did not leave a name. Engster is a very close friend and colleague of Rannah Gray. The archived broadcast was removed from the WRKF website as there were legal and ethical implications related to how and why this particular broadcast was produced. It can still be found on the link below:
http://golsutigers.org/JES_082814.mp3
JoAnne Moreau - The director of MOHSEP (Mayor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness) who decides what businesses get grant funding and how much. She also made subcontracting with Gray's other businesses contingent upon receiving the money. JoAnne Moreau has an uncomfortably close friendship with Rannah Gray and Kip Holden. JoAnne Moreau's husband Don Moreau, and her co worker, Tuesday Mills, also wrote favorable reviews, some were removed by Amazon. On the Facebook post below, Joanne Moreau feels so confident in the safety of her position at MOHSEP, she is praising the authors of the book for writing it. Since this was Moreau's PUBLIC searchable post, it does not apply to any expectation of privacy:
Mary Jane Marcantel - Ghost writer of Rannah Gray's book. Her income is heavily dependant on grant money received by the city of Baton Rouge directly through Rannah Gray and Kip Holden. She is the director of a non profit run program originally called Operation Clean Sweep that started as a program that was operated by the Baton Rouge City Council. The program consisted of buying the homeless one way bus tickets out of the city to rid areas around the businesses and homes in mid city Baton Rouge of homeless blight. Later the program was masked as a grant funded charity organization, rebranded as Homeless Outreach Prevention Efforts, aka HOPE, to give it a softer touch,and handed over to Marcantel as acting director. The final rebrand was "The Way Home Project". The decision to appoint Marcantel as director has a more nefarious slant, as Marcantel had started a Google Group in 2012 dedicated a thread to discussing the rise of crime in the Spanish Town district and how it correlated with the homeless population. Gray and Holden needed to rid mid city of the homeless. This was to give Gray, Holden, and their colleagues a cleaner business environment.
Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/brdowntowngroup/1_gFRJTdpYI/tZGYFzJMZkAJ
https://www.businessreport.com/article/spreading-hope
Andre Moreau - Evening anchor at WAFB. He interviewed Rannah Gray in a special segment that topped the newscast on November 19. Andre Moreau was hired prior to the interview to emcee several events that were directed by Rannah Gray including America's Wetlands Foundation, a non profit started by Gray and Val Marmillion, and her Red Stick Revelry project that was privately and publicly funded and operated. Andre Moreau was awarded by AWF America Wetlands Foundation for his work at "building public understanding".
http://theadvocate.com/features/10933915-123/baton-rouge-events-to-ring
http://www.americaswetland.com/article.cfm?id=2367
WAFB TV - the local Baton Rouge television station that served as a hub in which the "official" Scott Rogers narrative was disseminated. Rogers' show, The Around Town Show, was broadcast by this station. Rannah Gray also has a special relationship with the WAFB's top brass. She does get special consideration when pitching an event on the network or when using their staff to pitch opinionated stories that further her businesses. WAFB is currently the only station advertising her Red Stick Revelry project, (more on that later).
Darla O'Conner - Online cheerleader for Gray's book. She was on the governing board of the tiny church pastored by Rogers, she also gave her account for news articles that disvowed any knowledge on her part that Rogers committed any crime, and even stated that she formed her opinion from Stuart Poulton's claims. She mysteriously and immediately turned publicly vitriolic in regards to Rogers at the time Gray's book was published. She is also the director of a Baton Rouge halfway house for ex convicts called Ecumenical House. It touts itself as a 35 bed facility and has a history of housing the rich and famous among Louisiana's ex convicts upon re entry into society. Edwin Edwards was a past resident.
https://govtribe.com/vendor/baton-rouge-community-transition-treatment-center-inc-baton-rouge-la-dba-ecumenical-house
Rannah Gray- "A Familiar Evil" - a Desperate Attempt.
Scott Rogers and Matthew Hodgkinson were whistleblowers that were messing up Rannah Grays tax funded free ride. Rannah MUST control the narrative for the sake of herself and her "very special friend", Kip Holden, who was running for state office.
Rannah Gray was the public relations expert that was embroiled in a lawsuit with Scott Rogers and Matthew Hodgkinson involving her piggybacking activities on several federal grant projects. She assisted with the super sonic media campaign that ensured that a narrative surrounding their deaths was disseminated to the world...
.... and now has written a book about it.
A little refresher: Under the direction of Kip Holden, Rannah Gray was being paid a percentage of grant money that was awarded to small companies for private/ public partnerships. The money was awarded through the Mayor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness to businesses upon the contingency that his "special friend" be given a cut of that money. Rogers and Hodgkinson (1stco, Inc) were the recipients if one such grant which, of course, had Grey leaching on. Rogers and Hodgkinson reported the scheme to state officials. Gray still wanted her money, she sued 1stco, Inc, probably not to get the money, but to make her role look legitimate. The press was catching on to Holden and Gray's pattern of mandated "subcontracting" thanks to Rogers and Hodgkinson speaking up.
Her grant scheme was making the papers at the same time her boss, Kip Holden decided to run as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. As the assistant to the Lieutenant Governor, Rannah assumed she would be afforded some protection from investigation until after his (and her) departure from office, but potential testimony from Rogers and Hodgkinson might prevent that.
Something had to be done.
Fast forward: Kip Holden lost his bid for the Lieutenant Governor's race so Rannah kicked into overdrive to keep the narrative alive by writing a book and advertising it on television ... even before Amazon had it available for sale publicly. Apparently she was in such a hurry she only has it available in digital format.
She and Holden must be feeling quite vulnerable now. Does she think people won't ask why a public relations expert suddenly felt the need to write a book? This will call attention to the fraud she tried so hard to cover up.
It begs to question whether she found a way to profit off grant money for writing the book.
Rannah Gray was the public relations expert that was embroiled in a lawsuit with Scott Rogers and Matthew Hodgkinson involving her piggybacking activities on several federal grant projects. She assisted with the super sonic media campaign that ensured that a narrative surrounding their deaths was disseminated to the world...
.... and now has written a book about it.
A little refresher: Under the direction of Kip Holden, Rannah Gray was being paid a percentage of grant money that was awarded to small companies for private/ public partnerships. The money was awarded through the Mayor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness to businesses upon the contingency that his "special friend" be given a cut of that money. Rogers and Hodgkinson (1stco, Inc) were the recipients if one such grant which, of course, had Grey leaching on. Rogers and Hodgkinson reported the scheme to state officials. Gray still wanted her money, she sued 1stco, Inc, probably not to get the money, but to make her role look legitimate. The press was catching on to Holden and Gray's pattern of mandated "subcontracting" thanks to Rogers and Hodgkinson speaking up.
Her grant scheme was making the papers at the same time her boss, Kip Holden decided to run as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. As the assistant to the Lieutenant Governor, Rannah assumed she would be afforded some protection from investigation until after his (and her) departure from office, but potential testimony from Rogers and Hodgkinson might prevent that.
Something had to be done.
Fast forward: Kip Holden lost his bid for the Lieutenant Governor's race so Rannah kicked into overdrive to keep the narrative alive by writing a book and advertising it on television ... even before Amazon had it available for sale publicly. Apparently she was in such a hurry she only has it available in digital format.
She and Holden must be feeling quite vulnerable now. Does she think people won't ask why a public relations expert suddenly felt the need to write a book? This will call attention to the fraud she tried so hard to cover up.
It begs to question whether she found a way to profit off grant money for writing the book.
The ProGap, LLC
My apologies for the lapses in writing frequency. There are several things that has been uncovered in the last few months, mostly on account that time has passed and people get careless.
One of those weird things that have popped up was a newly formed business called The Pro Gap, LLC. This new business is eerily similar to 1stco,Inc, the business that was managed by the now deceased Rogers and Hodgkinson. They offer the same services minus a studio setup, but video production, website building, and print production are on the menu. One reason for the similarity is that The Pro Gap, LLC is owned and operated by two former employees of 1stco,Inc.
You would think it would be perfectly understandable why former
employees of a company that was closed under tragic circumstances
would move on to do the same work, but that's where it gets
sticky. You see, on August 14, 2013 someone registered the domain
"theprogap.com", that "someone" was then employed by 1stco, Inc.
The domain was registered almost a year to the week Rogers and
Hodgkinson were found dead in the house on Daisy Ave and 1stco,Inc shut down.
http://whois.domaintools.com/theprogap.com
Apparently a plan was quietly hatched to start a competing business by the two employees while they were still working at 1stco,Inc. To make circumstances look downright damning, the domain registrar was the same man, Stuart (36), that called the Jim Engster show the day after Rogers was found dead claiming to be raped and molested as a child by Rogers. Stuart's resume and work visa contradict any possibility this could be true.
Also, we have to question the cozy relationship between Stuart and Maria Edwards, the woman who had Rogers hastily bequeath all of his worldly possessions to her the day before his death, and the only witness to the "suicide".
One of those weird things that have popped up was a newly formed business called The Pro Gap, LLC. This new business is eerily similar to 1stco,Inc, the business that was managed by the now deceased Rogers and Hodgkinson. They offer the same services minus a studio setup, but video production, website building, and print production are on the menu. One reason for the similarity is that The Pro Gap, LLC is owned and operated by two former employees of 1stco,Inc.
You would think it would be perfectly understandable why former
employees of a company that was closed under tragic circumstances
would move on to do the same work, but that's where it gets
sticky. You see, on August 14, 2013 someone registered the domain
"theprogap.com", that "someone" was then employed by 1stco, Inc.
The domain was registered almost a year to the week Rogers and
Hodgkinson were found dead in the house on Daisy Ave and 1stco,Inc shut down.
http://whois.domaintools.com/theprogap.com
Apparently a plan was quietly hatched to start a competing business by the two employees while they were still working at 1stco,Inc. To make circumstances look downright damning, the domain registrar was the same man, Stuart (36), that called the Jim Engster show the day after Rogers was found dead claiming to be raped and molested as a child by Rogers. Stuart's resume and work visa contradict any possibility this could be true.
Also, we have to question the cozy relationship between Stuart and Maria Edwards, the woman who had Rogers hastily bequeath all of his worldly possessions to her the day before his death, and the only witness to the "suicide".
Who was fearing a grand jury hearing?
We were told that both Scott Rogers and Mathew Hodgkinson were to appear in front of a grand jury, on that same morning both were reported dead. Both major UK papers had an interview with none other than our esteemed sheriff when he relayed that Mr Rogers was scheduled to appear... at his own grand jury hearing. Why is that unusual?
... because the defendant doesn't show up at any grand jury hearing, that's the prosecutor's show. The prosecutor gets the witnesses he feels will offer testimony to convince a jury of between 16 and 23 people that a crime was committed. The defendant is never called since it would rob him any chance of a fair trial. It isn't how it's done.
The sheriff had a few days to get his story straight before contacting the British media so it's safe to dig further with the info we were given. If Scott Rogers was called to testify at a grand jury hearing, he certainly was not the target the hearing, but a witness. No federal prosecutor would confirm that there was a federal probe much less a grand jury hearing scheduled.
Rogers and Hodgkinson were the whistleblowers that reported a hidden payment made to a personal friend and associate to Mayor Kip Holden, Rannah Gray. The payment was forced quietly by the director of MOSHEP piggybacked through a contract with 1stco, Inc, the business managed by Rogers and Hodgkinson. Instead the two men reported the contract anomaly to the state and returned the overage that was paid out by MOSHEP.
Did this hearing have anything to do with a probe of hidden payment methods through the Baton Rouge Mayor's office? Did having the main two witnesses turn up dead stop it?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-29010460
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
... because the defendant doesn't show up at any grand jury hearing, that's the prosecutor's show. The prosecutor gets the witnesses he feels will offer testimony to convince a jury of between 16 and 23 people that a crime was committed. The defendant is never called since it would rob him any chance of a fair trial. It isn't how it's done.
The sheriff had a few days to get his story straight before contacting the British media so it's safe to dig further with the info we were given. If Scott Rogers was called to testify at a grand jury hearing, he certainly was not the target the hearing, but a witness. No federal prosecutor would confirm that there was a federal probe much less a grand jury hearing scheduled.
Rogers and Hodgkinson were the whistleblowers that reported a hidden payment made to a personal friend and associate to Mayor Kip Holden, Rannah Gray. The payment was forced quietly by the director of MOSHEP piggybacked through a contract with 1stco, Inc, the business managed by Rogers and Hodgkinson. Instead the two men reported the contract anomaly to the state and returned the overage that was paid out by MOSHEP.
Did this hearing have anything to do with a probe of hidden payment methods through the Baton Rouge Mayor's office? Did having the main two witnesses turn up dead stop it?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-29010460
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
Is Rannah Gray writing a book?
Rannah Gray has purchased several domain names related to the writing of a book about the deaths of Scott Rogers and Mathew Hodkinson. Apparently the title is akin to " Familiar Evil". To demonstrate why this is so twisted, let's get some background on Ms Rannah Gray and her battle with Scott Rogers and Mathew Hodgkinson.
http://www.whoismind.com/email/cmFubmFo-cox.net.html
Rannah Gray is a partner of Marmillion/Gray Media, a competitor of 1st Co, Inc.
1st Co ,Inc was the company managed by both Scott Rogers and Mathew Hodgkinson.
Marmillion/Gray Media's marketing specialty is to create a predetermined narrative through press releases, social media, and "listening sessions" such as the ones she managed when pushing the Baton Rouge Loop. MGM works very closely with city/state agencies and elected officials, namely, Baton Rouge Mayor Kip Holden. MGM handles nearly all of his public relations work.
Rannah Gray initiated a lawsuit with 1st Co, Inc concerning contract money involving the East Baton Rouge Office of Homeland Security's contract with 1st Co, Inc.The OHS had signed on with 1st Co, Inc to produce the Red Stick Ready series, videos instructing the public in disaster related procedures (2009). The head of EBROHS mysteriously threw in an extra $15,000 on top of the agreed upon rate charged by 1st Co, Inc, they were told that the extra money was to be sent to Marmillion/Gray Media but written as a check from 1st Co, Inc. instead of the city contracting with them directly. 1st Co claimed Marmillion/Gray Media did not work for, or with them and were not subcontracted. This arrangement was suspect, so Rogers and Hodgkinson did not play along with the scheme and returned the money to the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.
In March of 2013 Marmillion/Gray Media then proceeded to sue 1st Co, Inc for the money instead of going through proper procedures of getting the money. Ist Co, Inc submitted a competing petition disputing the payment was not their responsibility because GOHSEP was holding the money, and urging the case to be held in state court, not city. Ms Gray perceived Rogers' exposing the hidden contract as a hostile act perpetrated against her so she set out on a public relations campaign to discredit Rogers.... but failing to exonerate herself.
When the news broke about the deaths of Rogers and Hodgkinson, the speed and procedure of dissemination of the press releases more than suggests that the Iberville Sheriff's communications office had a bit of help in getting the news out. Although there is no solid proof Rannah Gray had any hand in it, It would not be outside the realm of possibility since she would have benefited from it on many angles.
....and what would have been exposed if they lived to give their testimony in court that morning?
Original article:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx_IEtXm1rx5cWVWc2JYUWVneEk/view?usp=sharing
Rannah Gray's letter to the editor in response to the article:
http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/259534-63/letter-pact-story-misleading-gray.html
The Hayride article concerning Marmillion/Gray Media's questionable contracts:
http://thehayride.com/2011/06/quid-pro-quo-kip-holden-channels-his-inner-ray-nagin/
Advocate article announcing lawsuits:
http://theadvocate.com/home/5510220-125/dispute-over-work-under-ebr
Edit: These are the domain names purchased by Rannah Gray: 1. afamiliarevil.com
2. scottrogersbook.com
3. scottrogersbook.net
4. thefamiliarevil.com
5. thefamiliarevil.net Update: It has come to my attention that the Advocate has recently removed the article discussing Ms Gray taking 1stco, Inc to court. Here is a cached screenshot:
Blood and Paper
It reads:
My dearest Kimmy,
I am sorry it did not work out. My
greatest wish for us was to repair our
problems. I know you needed more than me.
I am so sorry that you may now be in
trouble just for saying "yes" to me in front of
the Christmas tree. I pray for your happiness(*)
wherever you find it.
I can not let your dad continue to suffer,
hope you can understand.
I will love you always,
Mat/x
Did you see that? Did you catch it in the photo?
The word "happiness" was slanted upward to avoid blood spatter that was on the page. That means that when this letter was written, someone was already shot. Did investigators notice this, or were they told to ignore it? According to Maria Edwards' 911 call as well as her newspaper interviews, she called directly after hearing the first shot, and while she is on the phone she says she hears a second shot. (audio below).
There is no way Mathew Hodgkinson had time to think out and write that letter between shootings. Either Rogers was dead long before, giving Hodgkinson time to write a letter on blood spattered paper, or Maria Edwards lied and did not initially call 911 as soon as she heard the first shot.
http://theadvocate.com/news/westside/11787377-123/exclusive-hear-911-call-view
Barricades, they're not for just doors anymore.
A few weeks ago the Advocate released a series of crime scene photos and the police report to the public. Suspiciously absent was any report of testing for gun powder residue that would have been needed to clear of criminal intent the only person reportedly present at the time of the shootings, Maria Edwards.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258179657/Police-incident-report-for-Scott-Rogers-Mathew-Hodgkinson-murder-suicide-in-St-Gabriel
Why would DNA tests be performed at all? All that would establish is who handled the gun in the past and owner of the blood spatter of those who were shot, and we already know who was shot, so why the DNA tests? Why did investigators forego fingerprint tests on the gun? Investigators either did not release all of the report, or substituted crucial analysis with redundant piecework that could be presented to the public as evidence. Conducting these tests may have thrown the story.....
...... But the story was already thrown. If the Sheriff Stassi's barricade story were true, then there is no way Maria Edwards could have possible been inside that house.
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
Now, being sceptical of how that story could have been published so soon just two days after Sheriff Stassi reported a conflicting story, I took It upon myself to contact the East Anglian Daily Times crime editor, Colin Adwent. He did verify that Stassi had called in the addendum to the story by phone.
To further verify the source of the article, I then contact Sheriff Brett Stassi by email. He did confirm that he contacted the East Anglian Daily Times with the story and that the story was true. I was quite surprised at the degree of emotion he expressed in his response. Since the story was only published in Scott Rogers' local paper, I asked him why he did not give this account to the local papers in Louisiana. His response to that question was that he did, but they refused to report it.
This is hard to believe. Not only because it took three emails to get Stassi to give me definitive "yes" or "no" answer, but because he went out of his way to provide a different narrative to be given to those that probably knew Rogers from his past life in England. Through the short correspondence I was not convinced Stassi was telling the truth.
Either way, it plainly lays out that the Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office was engaged in misinforming the public. It is important to discover why.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258179657/Police-incident-report-for-Scott-Rogers-Mathew-Hodgkinson-murder-suicide-in-St-Gabriel
Why would DNA tests be performed at all? All that would establish is who handled the gun in the past and owner of the blood spatter of those who were shot, and we already know who was shot, so why the DNA tests? Why did investigators forego fingerprint tests on the gun? Investigators either did not release all of the report, or substituted crucial analysis with redundant piecework that could be presented to the public as evidence. Conducting these tests may have thrown the story.....
...... But the story was already thrown. If the Sheriff Stassi's barricade story were true, then there is no way Maria Edwards could have possible been inside that house.
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
Now, being sceptical of how that story could have been published so soon just two days after Sheriff Stassi reported a conflicting story, I took It upon myself to contact the East Anglian Daily Times crime editor, Colin Adwent. He did verify that Stassi had called in the addendum to the story by phone.
To further verify the source of the article, I then contact Sheriff Brett Stassi by email. He did confirm that he contacted the East Anglian Daily Times with the story and that the story was true. I was quite surprised at the degree of emotion he expressed in his response. Since the story was only published in Scott Rogers' local paper, I asked him why he did not give this account to the local papers in Louisiana. His response to that question was that he did, but they refused to report it.
This is hard to believe. Not only because it took three emails to get Stassi to give me definitive "yes" or "no" answer, but because he went out of his way to provide a different narrative to be given to those that probably knew Rogers from his past life in England. Through the short correspondence I was not convinced Stassi was telling the truth.
Either way, it plainly lays out that the Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office was engaged in misinforming the public. It is important to discover why.
Tell Annie H.
Well, they say the case is closed. If you know something, say something. You may know something contrary to official reports in relation to this case, feel free to contact Annie H. You may remain anonymous and no information will be shared publicly, your information will be used as data from which to research. Annie will not give any indications from whom the information was obtained.
anniehystamine@gmail.com
In the next few posts we will look at the newly publicized police report and "handwritten notes' left behind by the deceased.
I
anniehystamine@gmail.com
In the next few posts we will look at the newly publicized police report and "handwritten notes' left behind by the deceased.
I
It's only real estate.
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.
Camille Berriman - the source that wasn't.
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.
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.
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)