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

  The farewell note left for the wife of Matthew Hodgkinson is of particular interest, especially when we were told that there was no real marital relationship between them. The suspiciously rushed press release from Sheriff Stassi said the marriage was a "sham" so that Hodgkinson could sidestep immigration laws and stay in the states. That's not what it looks like after reading this:

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.

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

  

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 .

http://www.wbrz.com/news/rogers-will-could-become-next-saga-estate-valued-at-165-000/  

  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.


  

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.