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.


  

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.

 

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

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

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?

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.

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.