(One of the main purposes of this blog is to explore some of the lesser talked about aspects of this case, that I have felt never got quite the attention they deserved. The granddaddy of all these under-talked about topics is the Harlow Apology.
Below is a slightly modified repost of an exhaustive explanation and analysis of the Harlow Apology I did, back on the Harlow & Joe...On Trial Blog.
It's amazing how many times the issue of Brent and Grant's involvement comes up, despite the shining, incontrovertable truth of the Harlow Apology. It seems to me, some of the bloggers in this case are agenda driven to simply forget the Harlow Apology, to sweep it under the rug, and just pretend it does not exist. Causing me to remind everyone of it's existance, over and over again, in comment after comment!
Notice that no one ever challenges the Harlow Apology whenever I bring it up. It's because they can't. It's logic is impeccable, it's conclusions inescapable. No, the typical response of those adverse to it's meaning is to simply ignore it, hoping the inconvenient truth of it's message will just go away.
Anyways, here it is again, in it's first very own FULL BLOG POST...a LONG OVERDUE HONOR...spreading it's glorious rays of truth once again throughout the Kocisphere...ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: The Harlow Apology!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's just extraordinary to me how little people know about perhaps the most CRUCIAL piece of evidence in this entire case: The Harlow Apology.
...
The scene is La Jolla, CA. In at least two conversations, Brent and Grant are part of a police surveillance and recording operation, the purpose of which, IMO, is not so much to gather evidence against H & J (although that is no doubt going to be a useful byproduct of the sting operation), but to clear up an important loose end in Sgt. Hannon's investigation: the extent to which (if any) Sean and Grant had any prior conspiratorial involvement with Harlow and Joe in planning the murder.
In other words, the main purpose of the WHOLE Blacks Beach taping operation was to answer the burning question: Did anyone "put them (Harlow and Joe) up to it?"
And what was the answer?
Well, the thing to keep in mind is that the answer here derives not so much from what H & J unwittingly said into those police recording tapes...but WHAT THEY DID NOT SAY. Had S & G been involved, conspiratorially, with H & J in planning the murder, the entire two-days of recorded conversation would have been LACED with references by H & J to their co-conspiratrial involvement.
But there are absolutely no such references in those tapes.
In fact, it gets even better than that for S & G. According to the affidavit, Brent and Grant asks Harlow a question (paraphasing): "Gee, why did you guys kill Kocis? You know we NEVER wanted you to do this. It's brought alot of unwanted suspicion on us in fact."
Now, this is what we call a loaded question.
If you notice, the most important part of the question here is not the question itself (Why...?) but the premise (we NEVER...). In other words, it's a trick. How Harlow responded to this trick loaded question is CRITICAL.
Now, if S & G were guilty, Harlow would have immediately objected to the premise. He WOULD HAVE said something like "Wha???? What you talkin' 'bout??? You ASKED US to do this!!!! You put us UP TO IT!!!"
But Harlow did not say that, did he? Oh no!
In fact, if Harlow had just shrugged his shoulders at this point, said nothing...that would have exhonerated S & G. Silence indicates assent in this instance - assent to the premise in the carefully loaded question.
But Harlow did more than give silent assent to the premise! Hoo boy did he ever! Harlow actually gave Brent and Grant a HOME RUN! Harlow gave NON-SILENT FULLY VERBALIZED AGREEMENT to the premise! He APOLOGIZED to them! He actually said he was sorry, for murdering Kocis w/o Grant and Brent's prior knowledge! Says so, RIGHT THERE IN THE AFFIDAVIT ("...As a response, both Cuadra and Kerekes made apologetic statements for their hardship." Affidavit pg. 30)
And as I've said MANY times before: You do not apologize for something someone wanted you to do. You apologize for something someone DID NOT want you to do.
THE HARLOW APOLOGY. LEARN IT. REMEMBER IT. EMBRACE IT. LOVE IT!
As you can see, it completely exhonerates Brent and Grant. Which was, like I said, most probably the whole point of this Blacks Beach police operation...to tie up this loose end in the case. And as you all can see, it got tied up in favor of Brent and Grant. Decisively, for all time.
The Harlow Apology prooves not that Brent and Grant are victims of this crime, along with Bryan Kocis...not perpetrators. And no amount of jailhouse spinning by Harlow and Joe will change this fact.
58 comments:
And BY THE WAY...
I notice from the affidavit quote I included, that Joe apologized too. It's funny how I never noticed that before!
This could be called the Joe Apology then, I suppose. Or the Harlow and Joe Apology. Heh!
I'll probably just keep it as the Harlow Apology, out of habit.
Jim here is the statement that you are referring too.The unspun version post it if you dare.
On 4/27/07, an electronic intercept and surveillance was conducted by a task force consisting of members of the San Diego Police Department Homicide Unit, The Drug Enforcement Administration, Naval Criminal Investigation Service, San Diego County District Attorney’s office, Pennsylvania State Police and the Luzerne County District Attorney’s office. The location of said intercept was within the area of La Jolla, San Diego, California. The subject of said intercept was conversations between Grant Roy, Sean Lockhart, Harlow Cuadra and Joe Kerekes concerning the homicide of victim Kocis. During said conversations, it was observed that Roy and Lockhart made statements regarding the business setbacks they have suffered. As a response, both Cuadra and Kerekes made apologetic statements for their hardship. The foursome additionally spoke of doing business, specifically the creation of pornographic film showing Cuadra and Lockhart. At one point in the conversation, Roy asked if the victim “felt any Pain”. Both Cuadra and Kerekes became silent, at which time Cuadra leaned towards Lockhart, who was walking next to him, and stated silently “don’t worry he went quick”. Cuadra and Kerekes then addressed Roy and Lockhart stating that if they went to the nude beach the next day, Cuadra and Kerekes would answer any question asked of them.
Jim it does not say anything about we are sorry for killing Bryan. Nor does it say that we did this because we wanted to kill Bryan to make a video. None of what you allude to this statement is there except that they apologized to Sean and Grant for their business problems. Could the problems that are being referred to be the problems that the victim caused them? Or could they just be general problems that occurred after Bryan was murdered. When you look at the whole picture, Sean and Grant were in a bitter civil suit with the Bryan and he put a stop to their business. So the apology that you and the police claim could be just one of sympathy and not admitting guilt.
RE:You know someone who has a friend who dies of a heart attack and tell them that you are sorry. That does not make you a killer now does it?
As far as Harlow’s statement about the victim went quick, well that is just common sense. Harlow was a navy medical corpsman and to those who don’t know, that is kinda like a nurse. And if he read the autopsy report like many of us did he would know the circumstances of the wounds and would be able to give that answer with certainty.
So as far as your conclusion about the apology, I might want to rethink that because it is not conclusive.
As far as I am concerned I will not believe it until I read an actual transcript of the conversations or hear the tapes, which ever is released first.
Funny thing is the prosecution is holding on to that bit of evidence a little too tight and they don’t seem to want to make that public anytime soon.
They did not even use it at the preliminary hearing. They had Grant testify to the contents of what was said.
And Grant’s testimony did not ever say that Harlow and Joe said that they did it. I wonder why that is?
It seems to me Elm, you are confusing sympathy with apology.
We know Harlow and Joe are expressing apology, because the affidavit clearly says "apologetic statements."
apology (noun): words of regret for an offense or accident; acknowledgement of a fault or failure, expressing regret and asking pardon.
Note the AND ASKING PARDON part. It's critical to the whole definintion. Apology is more than mere sympathy or regret. You are admitting some sort of guilt to something when you apologize.
What other possible guilt could Harlow and Joe be referring to here?
And in a larger sense, you are missing the whole point of the Harlow Apology. It is not only a statement of guilt by Harlow and Joe. As you can see in my original post...it shows that Brent and Grant are not co-conspirators with Harlow and Joe. THAT is the key significance of the Harlow Apology.
You do not apologize to someone for something they wanted you to do. You apologize to someone for something they DID NOT want you to do.
"Funny thing is the prosecution is holding on to that bit of evidence a little too tight and they don’t seem to want to make that public anytime soon."
You are forgetting about the gag order. That's the real reason it's not going public anytime soon.
Jim--
"Apology" is too kind a term for those statements by both men. Clearly, this is a confession.
The statement, "He [Kocis] went quick" is telling. Not only is it an admission of presence and involvement at the scene of the murder, but it tends to imply a sinister element of premeditation, not by one of the grifting, murdering con artists acting alone, rather both men acting in concert.
Jim is this what you speak of?
During said conversations, it was observed that Roy and Lockhart made statements regarding the business setbacks they have suffered. As a response, both Cuadra and Kerekes made apologetic statements for their hardship.
So maybe the conversation went like this: (Sean and Grant say this)Damn it really sucks what Bryan did to us. He put a stop to our busines and made us go thru hell and back. Then we finally settle things and he goes and gets him self murdered.
(Joe and Harlow respond)We are sorry that you had to go through that it really sucks the big one. I am sorry that Bryan was murdered too. I know that you had your problems with him but still why would some on kill him like that.
So is this more to your liking?
Jim face it the apology is in no way conclusive to the guilt of Joe and Harlow or Sean and Grant's innocence.
Not the way it is worded in the affidavit. You would only know what was realy said if you had been there or read the transcripts or heard the tapes and from what you claim you have done niether so it would appear that your statements are based purely on speculation.
From that little statement you can not presume anything that you have claimed. So until you acctually read the transcripts or hear the tapes it is not conclusive proof that they confessed.
So lets move on to something that you can confirm with facts Jim.
That is who you really are is it not or are you really involved with this case and you know what really happened and you are just trying to lead us on with your occams razor.
Yeah. And as to the whole "He went quick" statement - Elm, if Harlow was just sharing his abstract medical knowledge, why:
1) ...did both Harlow and Joe freeze up and pause for a sec, after Grant asked the pain concern question?
2) ...did Harlow whisper it secretly, into Brent's ear?
3) ...did they both refuse to answer more "abstract medical questions," until the next day and they were on a secluded nude beach?
Can you answer those "whys?"
Hey Rob welcome back. I am sorry for your lose. And just so you know there are no hard fellings. I aint mad at you.
Now back to the subject at hand.
The "apology" does not admit guilt and it is just the way the police worded it in the affidavit. What you and Jim are claiming in no way implies that they did the killing.
It is just a way to get them arrested for this crime. That statement is clearly trying to show just cause for their arrest.
And we do not know what context the statments were even made in because we do not have the whole conversation in front of us. Just the blanket interpration of whoever wrote that statement for the affidavit.
So you can argue this until the cows com home and it still will not make it true. The statement is just that a statement by someone who wrote the affidavit and it was their interpratation of what was said.
Until we acutally hear the tapes or read the transcripts we will not know what was really said.
"During said conversations, it was observed that Roy and Lockhart made statements regarding the business setbacks they have suffered. As a response, both Cuadra and Kerekes made apologetic statements for their hardship."
The hardships Sean and his CobraKiller were going through were their own doing. Naturally they blamed Bryan.
Now they blame Lee for current hardships.
Which reminds me... whatever happened to the CobraKillers trust fund and supposed millions?
My point in saying that? it is an example of the outrageous lies and claims they both make.
No Elm, that is not to my liking. The statement that you hypothesize is not an apologetic statement.
It's not a bad attempt at a sympathetic statement...and I'd buy it, maybe...if the affidavit did not say "apologetic statement."
Like I said above, there is a huge difference between mere sympathy and apology. Apology includes guilt.
What were Harlow and Joe expressing guilt over? Can it be any thing else but the murder, that led to the "hardship" complained of? No. I just don't see any other explanation.
"Jim face it the apology is in no way conclusive to the guilt of Joe and Harlow or Sean and Grant's innocence."
That is the most sensible thing I have seen you write.
All four are guilty as hell one way or another.
"The hardships Sean and his CobraKiller were going through were their own doing. Naturally they blamed Bryan."
No, they were talking about hardships brought on by something Harlow and Joe guiltily did to them. Hence the immediate "apologetic statements" from Harlow and Joe.
The word "apologetic" here is critical. It has a specific meaning. It would not have been used in a document as important as a criminal affidavit if it did not mean exactly what it meant.
BTW, the Harlow Apology was actually a two-day affair. Don't forget we have the tapings on the next day, on the actual beach itself to consider.
Harlow continued to apologize to Brent and Grant that next day, on the nude beach. This is a DIRECT QUOTE of Harlow speaking, not some police guy's interpretation, mind you:
HARLOW: "...and I should have thought where all those fingers would have pointed, I remember lookin at the press...I'm just glad that shit's over."
So you see, there is simply no doubt as to the nature of the Harlow Apology.
jim said...
Yeah. And as to the whole "He went quick" statement - Elm, if Harlow was just sharing his abstract medical knowledge, why:
1) ...did both Harlow and Joe freeze up and pause for a sec, after Grant asked the pain concern question?
You are walking along and someone asks you a question about someone who was murdered in a brutal way (throat slashed and stabbed 28 times) how do you react to that? This is someone that knew the victim on a personal level, How do you respond to such a question. The exact way Harlow did.
As far as Harlow's abstract medical advice, well commonsense would tell you that the victim went quick. No oxegen to the brain or the excessive beeding such a injury would result in. get real jim you know if someones throat is slit thay will die fast. I think it was a tacky question of Grant to ask myself.
2) ...did Harlow whisper it secretly, into Brent's ear?
Well Jim I for one was not there but I would have weighed the situation and most likely responded the same way. What would you want Harlow to say that he suffered? That he felt all kind of pain? Jim get real here I think Harlow’s response was just like what anyone else would have said in the same situation. What were the circumstances behind Grant asking such a question? His morbid curiosity or the fact that he wanted to know if Bryan had suffered and he hoped it would quench his hate for Bryan. See what happens when you interpret something from a stupid little statement that you don’t know all of the facts behind?
2) ...did they both refuse to answer more "abstract medical questions," until the next day and they were on a secluded nude beach?
You are reading too much into that. Murder is a morbid subject especially if it is someone known to one of the parties (Sean & Grant) is in on the conversation. Why would they want to talk about a murder. That was not why they went to California. This is the same murder that Harlow is a person of Interest in. The fact that they are meeting with people who they don’t know if they were involved in it or not. I would change the subject too.
When Joe and I talked about things there was one thing that Joe said for certain and that was that he could not talk about the case because his lawyer would fire him.
So we did not talk about the case. Maybe that is why Joe and Harlow changed the subject when Sean and Grant brought it up.
Can you answer those "whys?"
November 20, 2007 2:19 AM
As to answering the questions, I answered them as I would but I can not speak for Joe and Harlow because I was not there. But I can say that from conversations that we had after the visit that they thought things went ok but that they did not think that they would be going forward with the deal because they were not so sure about Sean and Grant anymore.
They had a bad feeling about things and wanted me to put up a poll on my blog about how big the demand for a video with Sean and Harlow would be. It seems to me that Joe and Harlow were just a bit concerned about the prospects of doing business with Sean and Grant.
it looks to be getting a little slippery on mtn Shitmore.
well that statement says guilty, NOT!. Think about it Jim, Harlow has his picture plastered all over the internet and the Local news and you think he is going to be concerned about Sean and Grant's misforune? No as the statement says:
HARLOW: "...and I should have thought where all those fingers would have pointed, I remember lookin at the press...I'm just glad that shit's over."
Nope Jim, you miss again this is just Harlow's realization that he was not the only one in the hot seat Sean and Grant were in it too.
Elm, your dodging the point. I'm asking why Harlow was so secretive when he said "He went quick."
If it was just the clinical analysis of a navy corpsman, why the need for secrecy?
And NO, Harlow and Joe were NOT reluctant to talk about the murder...they were HAPPY to! Under certain secrecy conditions, according to the affidavit:
"Cuadra and Kerekes then addressed Roy and Lockhart stating that if they went to the nude beach the next day, Cuadra and Kerekes would answer any question asked of them."
Again, why the need for secrecy? THATS my question to you.
"Nope Jim, you miss again this is just Harlow's realization that he was not the only one in the hot seat Sean and Grant were in it too."
Given Harlow's self-absorbed nature, I will concede this is a possible alternate explanation, yes.
But I think it may have been an extension of the Apology too. Remember, the whole point of the trip is to win Sean and Grant over; they wanted to film with them badly. Badly enough to fly out there despite your advice, and that of their attorney.
"But I can say that from conversations that we had after the visit that they thought things went ok but that they did not think that they would be going forward with the deal because they were not so sure about Sean and Grant anymore.
They had a bad feeling about things and wanted me to put up a poll on my blog about how big the demand for a video with Sean and Harlow would be. It seems to me that Joe and Harlow were just a bit concerned about the prospects of doing business with Sean and Grant."
HA! I can take a fair share of the credit for all this!
I recall this point in time pretty well. When I saw the pics from the beach for the first time, I thought, "my gawd, bb was right Brent and Grant DID put them up to it!"
Yes, bb, tis true...that is exactly what I thought! I could come to no other explanation...the possibility of it being a police sting did not enter my mind at this time.
And I blogged FURIOUSLY at this point in time! I mocked the whole idea of filming, saying it was obvious all four were murderes...who would rent a video from a bunch of murderers?
Well, this was the point in time Joe aka "mark@boisrus" finally got openly mad at me.
He launched into his usual "Thanks to people like you, Jim, our popularity is at an all-time high" bullcrap, and THEN...then he brought up the whole "we have a secret deal with the Norfolk Vice Squad to leave us alone" story.
LOL! My favorite Joe story...in so many ways! :-)
So, yeah Elm, LOL! I'll take some of the blame for Harlow and Joe coming to the conclusion filming was not such a hot idea after all.
Or perhaps I should say credit, not blame! Hee hee...
Jim I guess you did not know this but I spoke to Joe on a couple of occasions when they were in Cali. and the poll Idea was brought up before the picture even went up on my blog.
As a matter of fact I asked him if he wanted me to take the picture down after I posted it.
Joe said to me that things were kind of shaky at first and that there was alot of conversation at the table when they went to lunch with Sean and Grant about what had happened to Bryan and how it affected them.
He also mentioned their trip to the beach. We talked about it a bit but we did not get into much more detail than the post Harlow put up on his blog. That post pretty much sums up what they told me.
As for the pictures I posted them and so did Dewayne but Grant asked Dewayne to take it down. I called Joe and asked him if he wanted me to do the same thing. he said no just leave them up.
I had the picture for a couple of hours before I posted it. I could not get in touch with Joe but his email said to post it so I did.
We talked about the trip to California before they went. And I said to him that I did not have a good feeling about it and I told them that if it were me I would not go.
This is in regards to the "contract" that Grant sent them. I told them to run it by their attorney and see what he had to say about it and they did.
apparently they did and their attorney spoke to Grant. From what I was told the conversation did not go to well and that is why he thought it was not a good idea to go.
My feelings were from a number of sources and I guess I was right in my asumption. My major concern was that I did not know whether Sean and Grant had anything to do with the murder.
At that point in time none of us really had a clue as to what was going on.
Elm, did they say anything about the incredible online backlash that occured after the beach visit?
I mean, I was going nutzo, saying this showed at least three, and perhaps all four, of them were guilty...this represented the fulfillment of a contract murder."
"jim said...
"Anonymous said...
And this reduces us thinking that Brent and Harlow conspired to kill Bryan ? April 29, 2007 4:36 PM"
That does appear to be the inescapable conclusion we must draw from all this, yes. April 30, 2007 7:38 AM"
Bb agreed with me, although he came to the same conclusion from a different direction:
"bb said...
until now I thought HC had nothing to do with Bryan's murder, now I am not so sure. only an idiot would get involved with Sean. is HC an idiot? hmmmmm. April 30, 2007 1:53 PM
Cad and MANY others where posting about how uncomfortable Brent looked there on the beach...as if there was this huge secret he was hiding.
"Cad said...
Is it just me or does anyone else notice a complete absence of chemistry between Harlow and Sean in those 3 pics.
Sean is just staring at the camera and does not look comfortable with Harlow kissing his neck.
The body language suggests a lack of any intimacy between them. Sean looks stoned or hungover.
Not exactly cover shots. April 30, 2007 2:24 PM"
"jim said...
"Cad said...
Is it just me or does anyone else notice a complete absence of chemistry between Harlow and Sean in those 3 pics."
I concur, Cad.
My sense of this is that Brent is being forced into this collaberation, quite against his better judgment...why is not known for sure, but I can guess.
Harlow has come to the west coast, to collect his agreed upon fee from Grant, for services rendered back in late January of this year, it would seem.
"bb said...
until now I thought HC had nothing to do with Bryan's murder, now I am not so sure."
Ah, welcome to the summit of the Mount of Enlightenment, my dear bb! Why, you look tired and worn after your long climb; here have a Mai Tai; I've been sipping them here on my lounge chair here on the summit of the Mount, while sunning myself in leisure oh these past 3 months...
Who else here shall now publically admit "yes, jim, you were right all along..."? : D April 30, 2007 6:35 PM"
You posted your poll; everyone could care less about that...everyone was going on instead about how stupid everyone on that beach was for even THINKING about making a movie together in these circumstances.
And a couple of days later, after this HUGELY negative online reaction...we got word on Harlow Blog the deal was off. LOL, yeah big shock there. :-)
One other detail I vividly recall: After I made my "Mai Tai" comment to bb, this curious anonymous post appeared, threatening me with libel:
"Anonymous said...
Jim you can sit atop that mountain with BB and enjoy your Mai Tai’s and it will make it much easier on god because he will only have to use one lightning bolt to get you both. That statement about collecting fees is libelous and you should be ashamed.
A higher power April 30, 2007 7:35 PM
This post, even though it was anonymous, immediately struck me as very odd at the time. The poster was saying my "collecting fees" post was libelous with such certainty, that it actually made me think for a sec...what does he know about all this that we all don't know?
Looking back at all this in hindsight..I think I know who a higher power was.
This comment you made I find interesting Jim. You mention email evidence from Harlow. Now why would you know about that when the affidavit had not been released and Joe and Harlow were not even arrested?
jim said...
"ab said...
...
jim,
"Harlow has come to the west coast, to collect his agreed upon fee from Grant, for services rendered back in late January of this year, it would seem."
why didn´t we see any arrest yet?"
Yes, well, that is the $64 question, now isn't it?
Why hasn't anyone been arrested yet?
Lack of physical evidence, it would seem. We have motive evidence (vs Grant), circumstantial and email evidence (vs Harlow)...but judging by the lack of an arrest...lack of any physical (ie, DNA) evidence, I'm guessing. And that is making the investigators arrest-shy. That fire seems to have been quite efficient, unfortunately.
The next interesting date coming up will be the 60 day mark from the last resealing of the Luzerne Cty warrant. At that time the seal comes off unless yet another extension is granted.
I warned early on that there was a possibility this case would never be solved. If there is no arrest by the date above, I predict that'll be the end of it; this'll be officially a cold case.
With Harlow (and, thanks to this romp on the beach, Grant and Sean) being permanently tarred with suspicion, for the rest of their natural lives.
May 1, 2007 7:30 AM
Jim you made this comment 14 days before Joe and Harlow were arrested. So how did you know about the email evidence?
The lack of DNA evidence makes sense because of the fire but the search warrants were still sealed and the affidavit for they're arrest was not published. Did you have inside information or were you involved in the investigation?
I can do research on my blog too. the comments on that post were quite interesting I might also add.
Oh and Jim I must confess I was "A Higher Power". I thought it was funny at the time. In hind sight I guess it was not so funny.
Oh, you were a higher power, LOL! Yes, that makes sense.
And we did have email evidence known at the time...the Drake photo was attached to an email. We all knew of this.
It's funny how some of the stuff I wrote back on that thread turned out to be remarkably prophetic.
Heh, of course, a lot turned out to be remarkably wrong too. Like about Sean and Grant being involved...not in my wildest dreams did I envision this to have been a sting operation all along.
Lesson learned: Always check your premises. They may not always be right.
LOL, also from the same time vault:
"mark @ www.boisrus.com said...
THE SINGLE LARGEST XXX MOVIE EVENT BOYBATTER HAS EVER PRODUCED...will be shot this Saturday in beautiful Va Beach on the strip/boardwalk with/starring Troy Hunter , a HOT 19 year old jock super twink ripped , EXOTIC, and full of cum! Hes a multi millionaire from a wealthy family in Va that owns several HUGE Cigarette companies including interest in Richmond based Phillip Morris. This local Richmond/DC/Norfolk celebrity has been hounded by scores of Top Rated studios world wide BUT chose to contact boybatter's own Harlow to film his debut in duo BAREBACK sex with STUDWONDERHARLOW!!! He says he does not want the money (although he will be well compensated) BUT wants the famous Harlow to plunder him with his Wonder :-)~~!!! and reap the benefits of "instant fame" since Harlows Press has thrust him into Gloabal spotlight!
As our filming with Brent Corrigan is a delayed & complicated Project involving Murder accusations, Police, Lawyers, Press, and many emotions, WE have decided to release this Massively important work with Troy Hunter NOW! to tide you over :) So, Hang on tight as we introduce Troy Hunter to the World FIRST!!! brought to you by Boybatter's Harlow! May 2, 2007 4:25 AM"
We have Joe admitting the murder accusations caused them to drop filming plans. Was that your sense of it too, Elm?
Elm--
As for what you characterize as a lack of DNA evidence, you should not jump to that conclusion. Fires are curious things. Flames do not not always destroy everything and the heat may not always be as intense as might be believed have cool pockets. All strands of evidence, including witnesses and forensics was not required to be presented at the Preliminary Hearing, the Prosecution only had to show cause as to why the named suspects/defendants and no one else should be bound over for trial on 1st degree murder. This was done to the satisfaction of the Court. The affidavit now takes a back seat and the results of Discovery take center stage with new evidence and witnesses to presented at trial.
Joe has deleted some posts from his blog and does not allow comments anymore.
That was they're out. If you look at the post closely you will see that they were doing a total about face on the whole Brent Corrigan thing. The comments are quite telling. They realized that it was not a good idea after all.
Oh and Jim that was a good out you used about the email evidence but in my opinion it won't fly. you seem just a little to in the know on certain aspects of this case before they were released.
You said it yourself that you thought Sean and Grant were involved before Joe and Harlow went to Cali. And then you got real smug about the "fact" that they were not before joe and Harlow were even back in Virginia Beach.
Almost as if you wre privy to some information that the rest of us were not aware of.
Hmmm, same at Harlow Blog. A mass extinction of recent post (back to Sept 27). And the links section removed.
Could be hackers again.
Rob as for the lack of DNA evidence I was commenting on what Jim said.
As far as Joe and Harlows blogs being edited it only makes sense. On so many occasions it has been said that they should take them down.
It looks to me that they are doing what their attorneys have told them to do.
As far as Joe and Harlow wanting to work with Sean and Grant it would appear that they had second thoughts. Sean and Grant extended the invitation for them to come to California in the form of a contract for them work together.
Joe and Harlow it would appear decided not to go through with it.
And they chose to leave with out signing it. There was no video just still pictures that have surfaced as of yet.
As for as any other evidence coming forward I am not sure what else there could be. But we are in the discovery phase of the trial proceedings and who knows what will be brought in.
The Blacks Beach tapes are crucial to the case from what I gather but they were not presented at the prelim. The prosecution used Grant's testimony as to what they contained instead.
So I guess they are part of the discovery of the trail and the defense will finally get to hear them. whether they are included in the trial is yet to be seen.
As far as the DNA and or physical evidence goes we will also have to wait and see on that as well.
The so called apology is not the srongest evidence of the beach tapes in my opinion. It is something that is truly up for interpatation on the judge and the jury's part.
With the statements made being subject to the context that they were made in. Grant Said it himself under oath at the preliminary hearing that they never admited to killing Bryan Kocis.
So to me the tapes do not prove Joe and Harlow's guilt, just that they said somethings that are going to be used to try and prove that they did this.
So it looks like we are back to circustancial evidence as the major reason for they're arrest.
Rob you said it yourself that the affidavit just has to show probable cause to bound them over for trial. But the fact of the matter is it in no way proves that they are guilty.
Elm for all your claims and thoughts, you still have not explained why Joe and Harlow had Bryan's possessions - mainly Bryans video camera.
Evidence does not lie. People do.
BB as far as we know it has not been proven that those cameras were Bryan's.
Elm, a hypothetical question:
Lets say, on day one of the trial in March, an expert witness on consumer electronics testifies, and reveals that the serial number on the model camera in question is stored electronically in the camera software.
And that the serial number matched Bryan's camera.
Hence, the camera in Harlow's possession was Bryan's.
Would this revelation affect your current view of this case? And in what way, exactly?
Keep in mind, this is only a hypothetical.
I doubt that this would change Elm's perception at all.
But I do wonder what evidence they have found and have not yet made public.
That SUV I am sure has been combed for even one red blood cell.
You know I think they are guilty as sin. But just as an idea, what kind of person(s) would it take to set up Harlow and Joe, to frame them so totally and completely? It would take far more than Sean & Grant. The persons would not even want Sean and Grant to know or be involved. It would have to be a really elaborate setup.
It reminds me of that movie Body Heat with William Hurt and Kathleen Turner. She sets him up good and deep, and he falls for the trap hook, line, and sinker. But that was just a sexy movie.
The problem with Harlow is how he acted after the fact starting with seeing fire and a body if that is what he will say. We have explored that view already. Both porn hustlers acted in the worst way one could if they wanted to be cleared of this.
I listen to Elm and really really try and see what he sees, and I can't see anything there. His strong gut feeling is that Harlow did not do this.
When I see pictures of Harlow I do not see a remarkable guy full of warm human spirit, inner beauty, and a peaceful kind soul. I wonder if I had met him if I would have seen something wonderful that the pictures never captured?
"You know I think they are guilty as sin. But just as an idea, what kind of person(s) would it take to set up Harlow and Joe, to frame them so totally and completely?"
I asked myself that very same question, back in February when the "Drake" photo got traced to Harlow. At first, Harlow said some killer just randomly plucked his photo off the internet...happens to him all the time, Harlow said...BUT...
...then pictures of Harlow eating dinner with Brent surface. WAY too far out to be a coincidence!
Which left two possibilities: Harlow was "Drake" hence involved heavily in the killing; or Harlow was framed (with Brent and Grant being frame victims too, by extension..the framer must have known of the Vegas dinner, and that suspicion would fall on all parties present at Le Cirque).
I gave the Harlow was framed idea a fair hearing in my mind. It did NOT pan out. As you say, it would have taken massive technical know-how to plant all the emails, and have the IP addresses trace back to Harlow, not to mention the cell phone evidence, credit card evidence, knife evidence, camera evidence, Justin Hainsley motive evidence, etc etc etc...
There are 9/11 conspiracy theories out there less convoluted than the simplest "Harlow was framed" theory could ever be.
And if Harlow was not framed...that leaves only one possibility (see above).
Jim if the cameras are proven to be Bryan's than that is one more piece of evidence that goes towards their possible guilt.
But it would only be prove that they are guilty of theft.
Not that they killed Bryan.
Don't you get it yet?
Do they have proof that they slashed and stabbed Bryan?
Do they have proof that they burned the house down?
All of the evidence has to point to them but they still do not have proof that they were there while Bryan was alive.
So as I said when they can prove with out any reasonable doubt that Bryan was alive while they were there and dead when they left then I will believe that they are guilty.
It really is that simple.
That was a very revealing answer, Elm. Thanks.
elmysterio said... All of the evidence has to point to them but they still do not have proof that they were there while Bryan was alive.
--------------------
Elm, I think they are saving the best part for last. You know the desert with all the toppings and a cherry on top!
I think most of us are blabbering away during intermission here not just because we know this is a pretty good predictable piece of drama, but because we know the courtroom wrap-up is going to be a humdinger....giftwraped with a pretty neatly very tightly tied bow.
No need to think that there might not be enough evidence.
" it would have taken massive technical know-how to plant all the emails, and have the IP addresses trace back to Harlow, not to mention the cell phone evidence, credit card evidence, knife evidence, camera evidence, Justin Hainsley motive evidence, etc etc etc..."
Or....it would take massive know-how and private unknown information to know that Harlow and Joe were going to PA to meet and talk with BK, and to "set up" the remainder of the evidence to finger them both. (Elm, please don't run with this, it is just a fictional idea that holds no water)
The duo will claim that all the email, phone and cc evidence is real and true. And simply points to their planned innocent meeting.
It's the remainder of the mountain which will be very hard (impossible) to explain away. And they can't begin to even line up their story without the rest of the evidence being provided by the DA's office.
The other problem is that H & J are not going to be able to get their stories straight together as they are not even being kept in the same place. It would take their attorneys working in sync as well as H/J working with them in sync. All must have the same exact story that matches, and that fits the remainder of the "currently unknown" evidence.
"That was a very revealing answer, Elm. Thanks.'
I agree, it is revealing.
Next the claim will be that it was an elaborate set up, someone planted all the yet to be revealed evidence.
Did Sean and his CobraKiller give Harlow Bryan's camera to Harlow as a gift?
OR:
Was the camera by the front door when Harlow seen the body and smelled the smoke? Harlow decided to take the camera as a souvenir?
OR:
Robert Wagner and Joe were secret lovers. The both wanted Bryan and Harlow out of the way so they could live happily ever after - Robert killed Bryan while Joe sent Harlow to the Bryan's home... the set-up of Harlow was set in motion.
OR:
A black helicopter with unknown secret government agents landed in Bryan's back yard. The knew Harlow was on his way to Bryan's. They went in to the house, did the deed, then set fire to the house when Harlow was a block away. All because these agents FAILED to act on complaints made by Sean Lockhart. They needed to cover their asses.
OR:
A top senator involved in a kiddie porn ring with Bryan knew the feds were moving in to make arrests. The senator was a client of Harlows. Said senator hired mercenaries with a black helicopter to silence Bryan and save his own ass.
OR:
Well this one I'll keep to myself coz its the one I believe.
Happy turkey day to the USA bloggers and visitors.
ROFLMAO. Yeah. Happy Thanksgiving to all.
It appears that you all think that I am unreaonable and will not accept the evidence at hand.
Well that is wrong I am just giving an alternative view of what it means. I for one am just not convinced that they did what they are accused of.
Why is that so hard for you all to accept? I accept the fact they you believe that they are guilty.
Quickysrt I can understand that you don't accept that they might not have done this. But you little scenario is something that I have already said.
Harlow wanted to work with Sean and he went through cobra video to do so, hence the emails and phone calls, etc. Did he kill Bryan, well that will be up to the courts to prove.
So as you can see I still have not been convinced of their guilt. Just like I said before I will wait for the rest of the evidence to come in before I make that decision.
I will not make a rush to judgement against them as I do not have all of the facts and for that matter neither do any of you all.
There is still alot of spin being placed on this case and all of the "facts" Be they proven or not that we have be privy to do not prove a thing.
The evidence up to this point is only are enough to hold them over for trial. and as it looks iot is going to be a interesting one to say the least.
I wonder what good dirt will be uncovered when the trial starts.
"It appears that you all think that I am unreaonable and will not accept the evidence at hand."
You seem to be accepting the known evidence way too grudgingly, unwilling to draw even the most obvious conclusions from such evidence, and hence your doubts seem very unreasonable, yes.
Thinking about what you said about the camera hypothetical, for example. It really does not matter in your world view who they belonged to, does it? It only prooves theft, not murder.
In the same way...DNA wouldn't matter either, right? Lets say in an alternate hypothetical, Harlow DNA was found at the scene...in your view: so what? That only shows Harlow dropped some cells while camera stealing in Luzerne County.
What if we actually had a live witness to the murder, would that matter to you? Probably not...that person probably broke a law somewhere, sometime in his life...even if it be for a minor crime like jaywalking or solicitation...hence NO ONE could be above suspicion of have "a deal" in one of the 50 states of the Union, and thus not be a reliable witness.
I could go on. Bottom line: There probably is no evidence in existance, hypothetical or real, that can go "beyond an Elm doubt" in this case.
But, as you say, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
Elm, I can accept that they might not have done this murder sure. If I was sending them off the death I would want more than what has been delivered thus far. Or I would need Harlow and Joe to deny it in front of me at least. And then give me their alt. version of the events. And that version of the events would need to be stronger than anything I have seen or heard yet.
So yes, I think strongly that they did it. And if Harlow took the stand and gave a good explaination of his innocence, and looked believable, then I would want more evidence from the procecution.
So I remain open to the story, and interested in what they will come up with. Because Harlow and Joe need a really fantastic story to defend from what they have been hit with. So even if I do not believe it, I expect an entertaining load of bull. If you're going to BS me, then at least BS me really good.
But from my arm chair - court of public opinion, they are toast!
I said it before, and I feel like saying it again, you Elm do not find much of the evidence all that damaging. The camera does not mean too much to you even if it turns out to be Bryan's property. You previously admitted the evidence is pretty bad when I cornered you about "you" never saying even what Harlow said "I know it looks bad".
Now, you are saying the camera is not that bad and only points to theft. Well, it appears it was stolen at the time a person was stabbed about 30 times and then torched.
It's about connecting the dots where there are dots to connect.
The point where I think I can we might find (any level of) agreement is that Harlow might have had very little to do with the murder and/or the plannig. And "it looks bad" (I mean it looks horrible actually) because of all the things Harlow did in his planning to visit and what all he did after that visit.
Jim is correct that he must be pretty dumb (both must be), or he is beyond dumb, like really brainless to go along with a murder he did not commit after the fact.
I can't remember ever hearing of an innocent person wrapping themself up in such a tangled mess of guilt as Harlow finds himself in.
Like a few other people who think he did it with Joe, I wish he did not do this. I don't get any pleasure knowing a young guy with some creative potential got caught up in his own self importance and thought he was invincible which resulted in his own life's early ending.
But as I said once before, porn models and hustlers often end up hitting rock botton in a hard way. But most of the time they are able to get back to reality, pick up the pieces, and recover with only a few prime years missing. This time it seems that Harlow and his guy went really way overboard.
Jim--
In Re the Camera Hypothetical. The scenario you lay out excludes all others save Harlow Cuadra and his partner, Joe Kerekes as being at the scene of a homicide, involving the victim, one Bryan C. Kocis.
Having purloined property in their possession, and without Kocis' Bill of Sale, is very damning evidence that any jury would convict on. Unless, a variant on the story would happen to be that someone, and not the Black Helicopter squad, planted those cameras which Harlow was shopping around for user instructions and used to film the guy he was fucking in Miami. Now that is a real problem in explanation, not for the police, but for the defendant perps. There may be some murder scene DNA. If there is, it will not be helpful to the grifting con boobs and then again you can bet the SUV they drove into and out of PA has been thoroughly scoured, not once, not twice, but more likely several dozen times.
Upshot: the defendants awaiting their murder trial or to plead out have an extremely difficult up the mountain climb to convince a jury to acquit. Lying alibi witnesses that they actively sought out post murder return to Virginia DO NOT HELP THEIR CAUSE.
And on a kinder note, Happy Thanksgiving.
Elm--
The motive according to you is that Harlow wanted to make bucks out of having his happy ass fucking Sean on film. Elm said, "Harlow wanted to work with Sean and he went through [C]obra [V]ideo to do so, hence the emails and phone calls, etc." Hmmm. That is the motive, worded much more socially acceptable, that the Commonwealth (State's) Attorney has stated as the reason for Kocis' murder.
So Rob, Bryan was going to film Harlow and Sean. Harlow decided to kill him because he did not want to work with Bryan after all. Harlow thought that they would get Sean to work for them when Bryan was dead. Sean would be so grateful that Bryan was dead that he would do anything for them.
The plot as you seem to think is that Grant would be blamed and he would be arrested and Sean without anywhere to go would rush to Virginia Beach and be a high priced escort for Joe and Harlow to show his appriciation.
Did I get that right?
It is quite obvious that you don't know a damn thing about being Gay or how the human mind works or you yourself would laugh at that excuse for the murder of Bryan Kocis.
Sean would not want to work with murderers unless he was involved with the plot of such. Yet you claim that he was not so why would he let Joe and Harlow make him into a escort?
Bryan could not even make him do porn and he paid Sean to do so.
You seem to underestimate Sean Lockhart, you are trying to make it appear that he is a hapless innocent boy who does not have a clue. Well you are wrong about that.
Sean can not be forced to do anything that he does not want to do and that my dear Rob has been proven on several occasions.
So you theory about Sean being forced into white slavery is pure bullshit.
As far as you claiming that Joe and harlow did this to work with Sean well that is a interesting theory.
As we all know that Bryan had no hold on Sean and he knew this.
Why would he go to the trouble to sue Sean and get a settlement only to do a underhanded deal with Lee Bergeron to buy out his Share of LSG Media?
I bet Bryan thought that he would make Sean his bitch boy if he did this, which if you ask me was Bryan's plan all along.
All of the reasons that have been claimed by you and the police are way off here and that is why I don't think that the motive that has been presented so far is really all that accurate.
Bryan had a mission and that mission was to destroy Sean Lockhart at any cost. You can deny that all you want but the facts are there to prove it.
Bryan knew that Sean could bring him down and that made him desperate.
Robert Wagner was also a witness to Bryan's dirty dealings and he was just as dangerous to Bryan as was Sean.
You yourself have claimed as much on several blogs. You can deny that there was a federal investigation all you want but the facts are there that there must be one and it is the main reason that all of the evidence that has been presented against Joe and Harlow exists.
The Feds are investigating this case along with the PA State Police and it aint because someone crossed some state lines. So you can drop that bullshit excuse.
The reason that nothing was done when Sean went to the FBI was because Bryan was already under investigation.
That is why this case is so convoluted because there are too many agencies involved and none of them can get their stories stragight.
As far as I am concerned the truth in all of this will never come out until the FBI gets who they are really after and that is when we will have justice for who ever killed Bryan Kocis.
This upcoming trial for Joe and Harlow is just a sham to hide the fact that who ever really did this is still running around free.
Now this is a bit of interesting news from PA. The DA's office has filed a motion to remove the PD's office as Harlows attorney.
With good cause I might add. It seems that Al Flora the head of the public deffenders office and and Jonathon Blum are the attorneys for Harlow Cuadra.
Well Al Flora just might be called as a witness for the prosecution with regards to the victim, Bryan Kocis who he also represented in his child abuse case in 2001/2002.
Jonathon Blum is also said to have been an attorney for Bryan Kocis and he filled a motion to get the public defenders office removed from Harlow's case.
As it stands Al flora is also representing the Kocis estate and the family of the victim.
Are you followwing this so far?
Judge Michael Connahan who ruled after the fact (2005) and he change the conviction of Bryan Kocis from sexual abuse of Children to corrupting of a minor so that Bryan would not have to register as a sex offender. This is a case where Bryan plead guilty. Judge Connahan
does not have the best track record on such cases.
In my opinion the "boy lied" is not a valid reason to not be convicted.
Judge Connahan also retired and hand picked his successor Judge Mark A. Ciavarella. This is the same judge who overturned the conflict resolution filing in the case with regards to Harlow Cuadra's attorneys.
Is this starting to make sense now. Someone is trying to hide something, I wonder what it is.
So it seams that Harlow is being represented by the same attorneys who are representing the interests of the victims family.
So as it has been said on several other blogs that it just does not seem right.
Can you say appeal?
So I guess what will happen next is that this will become a Federal trial which to me seems to be the plan all along.
I guess this will be just what a certain segment of the government is looking forward to.
A conviction with no questions asked and the protection of the Luzerne County Judicial System. which I might add seems to be under alot of scutiny at the present time.
It would appear that there are some serious questions being asked about why Bryan was not required to register under Megan's law.
And certain people just might be indicted under charges for failure to up hold the law with regards to the guilty plea rendered in Bryan's prior case.
Which is a third degree felony and there is prison time and fines and disbarrment if you are convicted.
That little problem seems to be the major reason for so much of this mess with regards to the murder of one Bryan Kocis.
Just a quick reminder folks, on the Three Laws of this here "Chinchilla Blog:"
1. No attacks on the person (ideas are fair game);
2. Try to stay on topic (loosely enforced); and
3. No mention of a certain troublesome online persona (for good or ill)
Elm--
Your words directed at me seem rather bitter and way off the mark: "It is quite obvious that you don't know a damn thing about being Gay or how the human mind works or you yourself would laugh at that excuse for the murder of Bryan Kocis."
I know plenty about being a man of any fashion. NO ONE GETS A FREE PASS ON MURDER, INCLUDING MURDERING GRIFTING CON ARTISTS WHO TRY TO STRONG ARM A 20 YEAR OLD INTO WORKING IN THEIR TOMCAT BORDELLO UNDER THE GUISE OF STARRING IN ONE OF THEIR FLEDGLING FILM PRODUCTIONS.
Using the camera purloined from the murder victim's house was not very smart.
The evidence is what it is and it overwhelmingly points at Cuadra, the self-billed 19 year old who is actually 25 years of age. That is a wilfull misrepresentation of a material fact.
You want the Federal government to take the hit for Cuadra and Kerekes' botched murder of Kocis. It ain't going to happen in this lifetime.
If those two go to trial, they will be convicted by the jury.
Rob,
First of all there is no proof that Joe or Harlow stole Bryan's cameras, let alone used them to film porn.
Secondly Harlow lying about his age is no worse than Sean lying about his, Opps I might be wrong about that. If Bryan filmed Harlow he would not be looking at a possible kiddy porn conviction.
Thirdly as far as botched murders go this one was not botched. it appears to be very successful.
And fourth but not least, I am not advocating that someone should not pay for the murder of Bryan Kocis. I think that who ever did this should pay for their crime.
The evidence that you claim is so damning is nothing more than circumstancial. And the supposed reasons are not really that well thought out.
Joe and Harlow were not in such a desperate finacial situation as you and the police want us to believe. They could have made it with out filming with Sean.
As a matter of fact the people who were in a more desperate finacial situation were Sean and Grant.
And if Bryan's plans had gone forward it would have been worse for them. So if you think that Joe and Harlow did this for money and the possibility of getting Sean to escort for them you are way off base on that one.
Answer me this oh knowing one, why would Sean be so desparate that he would fall for such a weak plan as that when Bryan could not even make Sean do what he wanted him to do?
"Rob,
First of all there is no proof that Joe or Harlow stole Bryan's cameras, let alone used them to film porn."
Elm, you don't consider the fact that there were TWO yes not one but TWO Sony video cameras involved here...both different models, and BOTH owned by Kocis, and BOTH IDENTICAL MODELS ended up in Harlow's possession. BOTH with the serial numbers scratched off. And we have Harlow going online, to figure out how to work them.
And um...this is not proof to you?
Elm you know how many makes and models of video cameras there are out there? And thus you know, each camera commands only a tiny % (1-5% at best) of market share each?
Care to take a guess at what the odds would be of not one but TWO cameras matching in this situation coincidentally?
I'll give you a hint: start at one/fourth of 1 percent, and work your way DOWN from there.
So...simple math tells us there is over a 99.75% chance of them being the same two cameras...and yet you think there is no "proof" here, huh?
Factor in the scratched off serial numbers, and the fact that Harlow seems to have "misplaced" the owner's manuals, and, well...
Okaaaay! Like I said before Elm, you are the kind of prospective juror defense attorney's dream about.
Jim it really does not matter what the odds are that you proclaim as so significant. If the cameras are not Bryan's than it really does not matter.
They have not been proven to be Bryan's.That is possible if the serial number is somewhere else on the cameras, is it inbedded in the cameras software or or on a circut board?
Maybe the investigators have discovered this or maybe these cameras are plan and simply not Bryan's cameras.
I know Jim that this is a major jolt to you and the believers in their guilt but maybe just maybe Joe and Harlow had these cameras before Bryan was killed.
You see as to your little mathamatical lesson you don't take into consideration that Sony made more than one of each of those cameras.
As to your theory of odds it would appear that if you were in the business of making porn and this was the best camera to use how many other companies would have the same two cameras.
Oh yeah It also does not help your argument that Joe and Harlow had similar cameras that were used in videos that were filmed in 2006 and you see the cameras on the video.
So I guess you will now say that they stole the cameras in advance of killing Bryan and used them and then killed Bryan to get the owners mauuals.
"Jim it really does not matter what the odds are that you proclaim as so significant. If the cameras are not Bryan's than it really does not matter."
Sigh.
"You see as to your little mathamatical lesson you don't take into consideration that Sony made more than one of each of those cameras."
Actually it does.
"Oh yeah It also does not help your argument that Joe and Harlow had similar cameras that were used in videos that were filmed in 2006 and you see the cameras on the video."
Well. That's a fairly major claim to be prefacing with an "Oh yeah," Elm.
A recommendation: If this is so eminently true, you are on the verge of making a massive contribution in this case by capturing said still images from this 2006 footage, then producing said images on your blog.
It make a great new "Rant" post. I am eagerly awaiting it; let me know appoximately when you'll post this; thanks!
"Oh yeah It also does not help your argument that Joe and Harlow had similar cameras that were used in videos that were filmed in 2006 and you see the cameras on the video."
What's interesting though is that Harlow states in a post dated January 29, 2007:
"did a search and most threads tell me how to acheive the "hi def film grain look" on post production.
how do i acheive this setting on the camera itself?
i just got it but do not understand the manuel to well :(
its easy on my xl2.
can someone please list a step by step to achieve this?
thank you so much in advance
-hrc"
What are the odds that Harlow and Joe just so happened to 'buy' the same style camera days after the murder?
Also, prior to magically getting these 2 Sony Cams in January, it would appear that Harlow and Joe were previously using a Canon XL2.
Yeah...just so we are all on the same page here, the two identical two types of cameras are:
1) Sony DCR-VX2000
2) Sony HDR-FX1
Elm, if you got photo evidence of both of these in 2006 Boybatter clips, well, 10 points for you! I'll be suitably impressed.
Post a Comment