Completely Off Topic Post: Santa's Bailout

Merry Christmas everyone! :-)



Update: And of course, it would not be Christmas without Mason Wyler, the gift who keeps on giving.

And no, he STILL refuses to even acknowledge the photoshopped "black-eye" picture issue. BIG surprise! You notice how he tries to address most every other credibility problem, large and small...besides that one. The black-eye gets the sweep-under-the-rug treatment. AS USUAL!

Here! TV Director John Roecker Funded Harlow's Private Lawyers

As reported earlier on PC's blog, Harlow Cuadra has new (proposed) private attorneys. This announcement came almost simultaneously with Harlow's rejection of a plea deal that could have saved him from the death penalty. In fact, the timing is such that it is not unreasonable to assume that one event (the imminent arrival of the newly retained private lawyers) influenced the other event (the rejection of the deal).

This naturally begs a question: where did Harlow Cuadra and his Defense Fund get the money for this new legal team?

While we obviously don't know the full list of contributors to Harlow's Legal Defense Fund, we do know for certain the identities of at least two: Porn star Jason Ridge, and Here! TV documentarian John Roecker.

We know this for a fact, because Ridge disclosed on his blog back in June of 2007, announcing both himself and Roecker as co-creators of the Fund (click on the screencap for a better view):


Roecker's participation in paying for Harlow's lawyers raises a number of interesting journalistic and ethical questions. Doesn't Roecker's upcoming Harlow documentary stand to gain significantly in ratings if Harlow goes to trial? And as such, Roecker himself stands to gain both financially and in prestige if Harlow is somehow convinced not to plea, does he not?

In other words, Roecker would appear to have some fairly obvious non-altruistic reasons "to help him get an Attorney to fight this all the way Through." Spending money on Harlow, to make money off Harlow, as it were.

Now, lets take these interesting journalist and ethical questions into the realm of the hypothetical, shall we? Hypothetically, lets say Harlow Cuadra, given false hopes by the presence of his new private lawyers and spurred on by the self-interested backers who funded them, continues to spurn all plea overtures and decides to gamble everything on a trial.

And then hypothetically, lets say Harlow loses his ill-conceived long shot gambit, and is found guilty of 1st degree murder.

And finally hypothetically, lets say Harlow gets the death penalty, and is executed.

Given the hypotheticals above...would John Roecker (and the other Harlow Fund contributors with less-than-honorable motives) have Harlow Cuadra's blood on their hands?

Would Here! TVs increased ratings be, in effect, "blood ratings?"

Like I said, some very interesting journalist and ethical questions are raised here. In fact, if all the hypotheticals I listed above come to pass (which I believe could very well happen) it would make for a fascinating story. Perhaps worthy of a serious documentary.

Update: Here! TV officially announces the release date for Roecker's Harlow Cuadra documentary (i.e., Porn Stars Episode 6) as next Friday, 12/19/08:



Update 2: Tomorrow is the scheduled release date. And looking back at their past comments, it's pretty much no secret which direction Roecker and Ridge will slant this. Even before this "documentary" got underway, this was their stated position:

And there you have it. So, there should be no Rolling Stone-like surprises here over this, come Friday. The fix is in, as they say.

Although you know, there is something about this comment of theirs which is very interesting, that I hadn't really seen before. Notice how they don't exactly insist Harlow is innocent; there is this "or" clause in which they are quite happy to accept Harlow committed murder...provided he had help from "a little twink boy and an older man."

In other words, their agenda seems not so much to save Harlow, as it is to ruin others' reputation. Harlow is merely a convenient tool for them to use, towards that ruination.

Update 3: PC completes his invaluable transcription of the episode. Rhetorical question: Could what I wrote above possibly have been more prophetic?

Update 4: Blast from the past - how this Harlow interview most likely came about.

Off To Plea We Go

See PC's blog for more late breaking updates on Joe Kerekes plea.

In the meantime, lets banter!



Update: Joe gets life w/o parole. Also significant (to me) is that Joe had to write out a "guilty plea colloquy" and give statements to prosecutors detailing the crime. And one of those details was the motive:

"Kerekes told prosecutors he and Cuadra viewed Kocis, a rival producer of gay pornographer, as an "impedement to the expansion of their pornography business," Melnick said."

That "porn rivalry" motive so many people just did not want to believe is now on record and official. And thus irrefutable.

Update 2: WNEP video. Joe walks into court to get his life sentence...

(embedded video removed, as I can't disable the autoplay and thus it'll become annoying...see via the link above)

Update 3: Elsewhere in the Kocisphere, the currents of unhinged denial remain strong. The new battle cry: "Stay alive, Harlow and Joe. Those guilty pleas should get voided aaaaany day now!"

Update 4: Huh, when did this blog go down? Must have been VERY recently, as a new post was there as late as November 27. Interesting timing for a total deletion, to say the least.

Update 5: When it rains, it pours - just as Joe was wrapping things up in Luzerne County, a Marine F/A 18 Hornet jet crashes into a San Diego residential neighborhood, a little over two kilometers from Brent and Grant's house.


Update 6: More crime revelations from Joe's plea - Harlow did the actual killing, and the arson. Hmmm. Given that Joe pleaded to pretty much the maximum sentence one can plead for, AND will not be required to testify...is there any reason for Joe to be lying about this?

Update 7: More revelations; According to Joe, Harlow did practically everything it seems. Joe even stayed at the hotel during the murder, he says (although he did admit he knew Harlow was busy murdering Kocis while he waited).

Italics are mine below:

Melnick said Kerekes told them Cuadra decided to “eliminate” Kocis, purchased a .38-caliber gun and knife from a Virginia Beach pawn shop and rented an SUV to drive to Pennsylvania. Melnick said Kerekes and Cuadra traveled together and Kerekes said he paid cash for a room at the Fox Hill Inn because the motel had no security or surveillance. They paid for the room in cash so they could not be tracked.

Melnick said Kerekes told them the two did surveillance on the Kocis home prior to the homicide, and that Kerekes participated in e-mail correspondence sent to Kocis before his death. Kerekes told attorneys he was aware Cuadra intended to kill Kocis, and the lighter fluid and lighters used to set the blaze were purchased at Wal-Mart.

Kerekes said he stayed at the motel while Cuadra went to the Kocis home. When Cuadra returned, he said [Cuadra] had murdered Kocis and [Cuadra] set the home ablaze, according to Kerekes. Prosecutors said Kocis’ throat was slashed to the point his death was ruled homicide by decapitation.

Kerekes told attorneys Cuadra returned with several items belonging to Kocis, including a Rolex watch, camcorders, tapes, computers and Kocis’ cell phone. They discarded the murder weapon and some of Kocis’ belongings.

So to recap all the Harlow (only) associated verbs in this crime: Harlow decided (!), purchased, rented, went, murdered, set ablaze, (stole), and returned. All by himself!

Joe seems to have been just a sidekick, there for occasional minor tasks and moral support. Which is not to say that what relatively little he does admit to isn't felony murder; it is.

"Decided" is the verb which really raises my eyebrow right now. If what Joe says now is true, then it's clear who wore the pants in that relationship.

Update 8: More WNEP video.

Update 9: A bit more on Harlow's proposed new private attorney, Joseph R. D'Andrea, first reported over on PC's blog. Besides his recent tax and ethics problems, his perhaps best known and most interesting (to me) legal work involved his 1991 defense of a sticky-fingered porcelain museum curator.

Interesting, in that he relied on a diminished capacity/demonic possession argument in support of a lighter sentence for his client (Professor Feller):

"Professor Feller's lawyer, Joseph R. D'Andrea, argued in an opposing sentencing memorandum that his client had a diminished capacity to tell right from wrong. To buttress his argument, he attached a letter from Dr. Jorge A. Pereira-Ogan, a professor of psychiatry at Thomas Jefferson University Medical College in Philadelphia, who interviewed Professor Feller over a period of three months.

Dr. Pereira-Ogan concluded that Professor Feller suffered from "an appalling poverty of interpersonal relationships" and therefore found in what he stole "surrogate objects to love, admire and take care of." He said the fact that Professor Feller painstakingly restored some of the pieces he stole, only rarely sold them and never took a tax deduction for his gifts lent weight to this analysis.

Professor Feller himself said in the interview that his crimes were so unlike every other aspect of his life that although not superstitious he could not exclude the possibility of demonic possession."

My Prediction

I posted this as a comment over on PC's blog, in his recent thread about the defense recommended verdict slips. Since I'm laying my chips on the table by calling this a "prediction" I thought it appropriate that I post it here as it's own new topic as well:

Generally speaking, a defense that plans to seriously go for a "home run" (ie, a not guilty verdict) usually will move to have the lesser murder charges (2nd and 3rd degree) dropped, and stake all their hopes on a choice between 1st degree and innocence. This way, they avoid the danger of a jury that might have voted innocent coming to a compromise lesser guilty verdict.

But here, we see the defense overjoyed that those options are in the instructions. Getting 2nd or 3rd, to them, would be like hitting a double or a triple! No need to even worry about the DP phase (ie, a possible strikeout) if they hit one of these

Reading the tea leaves, this tells me they don't plan to challenge the case much in the guilt-or-innocence phase (which is strategically wise, in that it avoids insulting the jury's intelligence with tin-foil hatted conspiracy theories on how Harlow and Joe were "set up"), but to save their main efforts for the DP phase.

Oh the defense attornies will no doubt go through the motions; they'll make occasional mild efforts to cross examine witnesses, perhaps bring in their 5 (LOL!) alibi witnesses (who'll get shredded by the prosecution), and then at the end, make the usual speech about "presumed innocence" and "reasonable doubt." But they aren't going to push it. Like I said, they don't want to antagonize the same jurors who'll be sitting in on the penalty phase by insulting their intelligence.

Then will come the penalty phase...THIS is when, I predict, you'll see the defense attornies come to life. And you know, they actually have a reasonable shot here. The defense would try to argue the fire "wasn't really all that bad;" that those firemen "weren't really in as much danger as those prosecutors are alledging."

If the defense can do that, and bring in a lot of pro-Harlow and Joe character witnesses (if you recall, a very early defense motion for a delay cited the need for a worldwide character witness search as one of it's reasons behind the request)...perhaps even tug at the jury's heartstrings with Harlow's abuse story (mentioned on the BBTs)...then yeah, they could "win" in the DP phase.

And I think, strategically, that is what they are going for now. That, and no more.

So, if anyone here is expecting massive revelations and fireworks at trial time; i.e. some sort of Perry Mason bombshell to be dropped that might let H&J waltz out of there free...well, prepare ye self for a huge disappointment.

That is my prediction.

Brent and Jonah Go A-Protestin'

From the local San Diego HillcrestBlog:


You can read the whole blog entry here, but it's interesting that the blog author lists fellow AGS-GGW actor Jonah Blechman (aka 'Miko') as his lover; I wasn't even aware they were an item!

Of course, he signs off every one of his blog posts "Your friend and lover," so, perhaps in that sense we are all Brent's lovers (including me). :-)

Anyways, this photo appears to be from the San Diego protest Saturday before last, mentioned briefly in Brent's last post (before jetting off to New York) that he was too pooped to write about yet.

And J.C. Adams has a round-up of other recent Prop 8 porn star activism here.

Update: OK, a bit off topic (concerns Brent's current NYC jaunt) but funny: Brent leaves a party, and runs into Michael Lucas on the way out. :-)

Update 2: LOL!



Update 3: Brent was actually protesting Prop 8 on both seacoasts this month:


...and manages to get name-dropped several other times in this HX column as well.

I Think Something's About To Happen...

...but that's all I'm going to say about it, for now.

"You Know, I Never Thought I'd Be Worried About Going to Death Row...It's, It's Just Really Hard..."

Starting November 5th (tomorrow) Here! TV will present a seven-part documentary about porn stars "Everything You Wanted To Know About Gay Porn Stars* *but were afraid to ask." According to a recent interview in the Advocate (thanks Will for this tip) documentarian John Roecker "captures those often-troubled souls of gay adult cinema."

What's interesting about this as far as we are concerned is that one of the "porn stars" Roecker interviews is Harlow Cuadra:

"Roecker is particularly proud of the episode centering on Harlow Cuadra, a former porn star and escort accused (along with boyfriend Joseph Kerekes) of brutally murdering rival porn producer Bryan Kocis. “This kid was being pummeled on the blogs, so I wrote to him in prison. I wanted to give him the same respect I gave everyone else. I said, ‘If you want to tell your story, here’s your forum.’ ” Roecker interviewed the now–27-year-old by phone from his Pennsylvania prison, and the audio appears in the film along with personal photos he acquired from Cuadra’s mother. Roecker considers his work with Cuadra “the most emotionally draining experience” of his life.

As Cuadra awaits trial, scheduled for January, Roecker says prosecutors have been asking him to turn over letters he exchanged with the inmate, even though he says those letters and their telephone calls had been monitored. “I’m not doing anything illegal,” he says. “If there was a smoking gun, I’d go to the authorities.” Roecker has kept in touch with Cuadra since and hopes to follow up with another chapter in the series."

"This kid was being pummeled on the blogs..." Really? Well that's shocking. Does anyone know of any blogs that might have engaged in this sort of pummelling? Anyone have any idea what blogs Roecker might be referring to?

Buuuut seriously folks...also of interest to us here are two of the other interviewees: Jason Ridge, who tried a few months back to create a "Free Harlow" campaign as a publicity stunt to promote his fledgling studio, and Caleb Carter, an early promulgator of the now discredited "hit man" story.








Hmmmm...given this Advocate quote by Roecker that he set out on a crusade to address the wrongs wrought by those eeeeevil Harlow-pummelling blogs out there, not to mention the story direction two of his other interviewees would have undoubtably urged on him...I'd say anyone who views this documentary should be prepared to do so with a skeptical eye.

Which won't be me, it looks like. I was a Here! subscriber for a while (it is a pay cable service, like HBO), but I never watched it. Until now, there was never anything on this channel that interested me. Then, I moved and changed providers, and they don't carry it. Which is just as well, because based on my previous subscription, I doubt I would have elected to in any case.

So, if anyone out there manages to get Here!, you'll have to fill us in with comments on how this show goes. But like I said, take this thing with a grain of salt (it looks like you'll need to keep a full salt shaker handy near your TV for this purpose).

A trailer clip below. You can clearly see Roecker's main overall storyline he's pushing here: The nightmare dark side of being in gay porn. He actually managed to convince a couple of these knuckleheads to shoot themselves up with needles and light a crackpipe on camera.

Also interesting to me is how Roecker uses a near-blinding stage light on the floor, to illuminate his subjects from below. This is a common photographic trick, used when you want to make your subjects look as bad as possible. From this angle, every shadow becomes unflattering, every flaw and wrinkle is highlighted, and the subjects are made to age about ten years as a result. Incidentally, this lighting technique became infamous earlier in this political campaign season, when a John McCain hating photographer used it to take really bad pictures of the candidate (she was fired by her magazine as a result).

Like I said, salt shakers people, salt shakers!



Update: Promo video for the Harlow episode:



Update 2: First comment posted on Jason Curious' thread:



Update 3: Here! seems to have pushed back the scheduled air date of the series until later this month, as according to J.C. Adams a pre-broadcast screening will now take place in L.A. on November 19.

Update 4: Harlow gets a marriage proposal. Hey why not, Scott Peterson gets them all the time! In any case, another clue as to the slant this documentary is about to take.

Update 5: John Roecker (left) and Jason Ridge (right). YJCMTSU!:



Update 6: Jason Curious plans a celebratory afterparty.

The Big 22

Undercover informant, prosecution witness, porn star, mainstream actor, director, studio owner, blogger, screenwriter, and wearer of ridiculous red pimp outfits "Brent Corrigan" turns a mathematically certain 22 years old today.

This day is of course an annual day of celebration for Brent and his fans; and conversely, an annual day of mourning and bile-swallowing for those unfortunate, unlucky and/or unwise investors in a small Pennsylvania-based bareback twink porn company. In retrospect, mortgage-backed securities would have been a slightly better investment (the $700 billion government bailout does not cover the collapse of porn companies).

SOTC once again sends birthday greetings to Brent, and wishes him continued success in his endeavors!



Update: Geez, writing this post made me realize...I'm celebrating a birthday too! SOTC was launched October 30, 2007. Wow, a whole year of this! Seems like it's been, oh, 8 or 9 years at least... :-p

Update 2: Brent is once again nominated for a Cybersocket Award. Although I must say, getting a nomination this year isn't quite achievement it was last year; this year, Cybersocket has decided to blow open the nomination process to as many as 15 candidates per catagory, and was willing to accept as little as a single nomination to fill those empty slots. In other words, the only legitimate bragging rights any site will be able to get out of these Cybersocket Awards will be to win an award.

Update 3: An Angel Skye shout out to Brent.

The Tawana Brawley of Gay Porn?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Geoff's Motive Theory

Some comments here are so interesting, they really deserve their own seperate threads. This IMO is one of those instances:

"In 2001, Kocis was newly bankrupt, meaning that his debts were discharged then, but that he had to forfeit most of his assets. He could keep his home, but if he wanted to keep his personal property including his clothes, he had to value them on a mark-to-market basis and buy them back from the court, forking over monthly cash payments at his bankruptcy lawyer’s office. He would not be able legitimately to apply for and get credit, except for a low dollar secured credit card, until 2008, which he did not live to see.

I estimate that Kocis could have produced one of his cheesoid dvds for somewhere in the low to mid five figures, assuming he paid the models generously. Where did he get his start-up and continuing operating capital if he were still in bankruptcy? Did he ask his parents for it? Did he dig up a bunch of Chock Full o’ Nuts coffee cans in the back yard? Or did he go to a high-interest underground lender who would be unforgiving about repayment.

Such an underground lender might know a lot about the gay porn industry, be able to judge a project’s probability of success, maintain wide contacts in the industry, have numerous gay porn film clients, and, again, wouldn’t be fucking kidding about taking back the principle and the vig.

All goes well for three years. Kocis makes his films, establishes a Rolodex of models, gets distribution, establishes an industry reputation, and the money starts rolling in. But he fucks it up. He plows his income into lifestyle and not into the business. Small businessmen do not have Rolexes and Maseratis until they retire. Kocis remains dependent on the underground lender for operating capital.

Then the bottom drops out. Kocis has a falling out with a star model. Kocis knows that this may cause his house of cards to collapse. Rather than say nice knowing you and good luck, he mounts a campaign to intimidate and discredit the model. His desperation in emails and phone calls is palpable. Disaster strikes. The model reveals what both he and the model have known from the beginning, that the model was under age at the time of filming, and that the films that secure the underground line of credit are worthless.

The next sixteen months are a maelstrom of desperation. Distributors won’t touch him or his product. Worthless assets. Declining revenue. Mounting interest payments. Repeated threats. He hires lawyers who won’t be paid more than the initial retainer to file lawsuits against insolvent defendants. (Ask Sean Macias what he cleared, or better yet his partners, if he has any.) The underground lenders conclude that they won’t get their money, and decide to make an example of Kocis for the gay porn industry.

Cut to Virginia Beach and Joe and Harlow, who are just as broke and desparate. It is whispered in their ears that maybe they will be allowed to live if only they do this one thing. The whisperers know that Joe and Harlow are incompetent and will be caught, but they also know that these two mooks will not be safe even in prison if they talk.

September 28, 2008 8:10 PM"

Update: Well well well, look at this...

Brent: The Book

Yep, it's a coming:


I envision "Siren's Tale" with a bit more detail, and being finished thru to the end of the Harlow and Joe trial. A perfect ending point, IMO.

Thanks to some tipsters (who have sworn me to secrecy), I know a bit of "behind the scenes" drama that swirled about Brent after the murder...drama that's never been publically revealed, that I assume has been held back for this book, and will absolutely knock you socks off when you finally read about it! So yeah, if it's all included (and I can't imagine it won't be!) we are talking about a gay best seller here, easily. Think of the "blood in the pool" moment from Greg Louganis' autobiography, THAT kind of suspense level. It'll be good, trust me!

CC in AA

This photo may be a thing of the past for witness #172 of the 385, as according to the latest from Jason Secrest:

"In other "show" news last week, I was surprised to find an incredibly sober Caleb Carter at Here Lounge for our Friday happy hour show from 6:30 pm - 9:00 pm. Carter says he's now a proud member of AA, a far cry from the boy we knew on MTV's True Life."

Hmmm. Well, if he's serious, you know what I say? Good for him! I wish him all the best in this personal lifestyle correction for the better.

Troubles in Burgerland?

Hmmmm...:

http://www.luckybucksbarandgrill.com/

Or maybe Lee Bergeron just put Jeremy in charge of the site... LOL!

For the backstory on this, see here.

Moving Out

This from Brent's latest blog post:

"...I’m moving out of the home we live in. I’ve been apartment hunting in San Diego. Grant is really worried about letting me go and he does not want it. But I know that if I get some independence and spend less time here, we will get along better. I know it will take some of the strain off of us. Even if he doesn’t want to admit it, getting some space will save our relationship...."

Read the whole thing.

Not much of a shocker, really, if you have been following Brent's blog the past few months; past posts have told of the strain the murder and trial have placed on then, and the glacial melting of their relationship as a result. A slow, reluctant and (thus far) amicable break up. And you know, I think it's fair to say most relationships would have imploded much sooner, under half the strain and pressure this one was subject to, over the past couple years.

Yet another casualty of Harlow and Joe's actions, two Januaries ago.

It would be additionally unfortunate, IMO, if this also led to the breakup of their website and business arrangements. This is not due to me being a "fan" of Brent per se, but rather (as I have said before) me being a fan of ANY porn star who has the guts to take on the gay porn establishment, use the freedom of the internet to strike out on their own, and break the shackles imposed by exploitive porn companies (ie, Cobra Video).

Let me close this post with a quote from the Crab Catcher Transcripts; this is while they are in the car, driving to pick up Harlow and Joe from their hotel...about to meet them face to face for the first time since Las Vegas:

GRANT ROY: (Coughing)... shit, I need some water.




SEAN LOCKHART: I love you.




GRANT ROY: I love you too, just be strong, be strong,...

"Has Manhunt Destroyed Gay Culture?"

That's the title of Michael Joseph Gross' latest feature article for Out magazine. As most of you will recall, Mr. Gross authored the earlier "The Case of the Cobra Killer" Out feature on the Kocis killing as well.

An underlying theme to Gross' Kocis article was that while the evidence against Harlow and Joe was overwhelming, he felt there was still something lacking from the "gay porn turf war" motive. Expressing no doubt about Harlow and Joe's guilt, he theorized that the missing motive mojo was "radical dissociation" brought on by the current gay cultural trend of online hookups, and the ability to thus create new internet personas willy-nilly:

"Bryan Kocis, Sean Lockhart, Harlow Cuadra, and Joseph Kerekes reinvented themselves online. Military patriotism or fundamentalist faith helped accustom some of them to double lives. But these four were caught up in a mode of reinvention disconnected from the one that in literature and life has united American characters as disparate as Abraham Lincoln, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Horatio Alger, Jay Gatsby, and Tom Ripley.

Those men all left home to start anew. These men just logged on. They created alternate identities in parallel worlds, as most of us do now, imagining that we need not give up anything to do so, believing that our games exact no unrecoverable cost. The difference between us and the characters in the case of the Cobra killer is one of scale, not of kind. Unreal realities, endless flickering between truth and fiction, an addictive stream of possible connections among possible selves, converging in the dead end of a life."

I'll admit my own openness to the theory, having personally catalogued Joe Kerekes' extreme online derangement prior to his arrest.

In the new Out article, Gross picks up that theme again in a big way, with a major expose on the very popular Manhunt online hookup site. Subtitled "A cost-benefit analysis of our quest to get laid," as you can imagine from Gross' previous article...the costs are generally portrayed as pretty weighty, and the benefits miniscule or illusiory.

This new article has already created quite a stir out there, raising eyebrows already on blogs quite a bit bigger than this one.

Now, Gross did not specifically list "increased propensity to drive to another state and murder someone" as one of the costs in this new cost-benefit analysis, so, this new article is not Kocis-related per se. Still, it is interesting, and does touch upon his earlier theme about the impact of online fantasy as being an additional piece to the motive puzzle.

So...Manhunt: Good or evil? Discuss.

Update: Well here's an interesting twist on the story!

Update 2: Update to the update. As before, the Towleroad comments are on fire!

Update 3: And now, Crutchly resigns from Manhunt board.

A Tale of Two Restaurants

What happened in Vegas didn't stay in Vegas, when it came to the infamous Le Cirque dinner between Grant Roy, Sean Lockhart, Harlow Cuadra and Joe Kerekes. On the contrary, that Vegas dinner got extensively talked about and rehashed some time later at the Crab Catcher restaurant in La Jolla, California...by all four of the original participants.

And thanks to PC's posting of the entire set of Crab Catcher Transcripts (CCTs) we can now reconstruct what was said, and who said it, at the mysterious and controversial Le Cirque dinner in Vegas. The CCTs, when studied in detail, pretty much settle any conflicting accounts of that earlier dinner.

At the outset, lets remind everyone of the two different versions of the Le Cirque dinner propounded in this case. First, there is Grant's version, laid out in the arrest affidavit:

"Roy continued by stating that he and Lockhart subsequently met with Cuadra and Kerekes (aka Trent) for dinner at "Le Cirque", restaurant at the Bellagio Hotel. The foursome discussed conducting business at some point and possibly "trading (pornographic) scenes". Roy advised that LSG could not embark in such an endeavor at that time as they were embroiled in pending litigation with Cobra Video, and more specifically, Bryan Kocis. Cuadra then asked questions such as; "what if Bryan left the country, and what if he went to Canada". Roy stated that Lockhart "had a few drinks in him and didn't understand what Harlow was talking about", and stated; "then he'd only come back". Kerekes then stated that "Harlow knows someone who would do anything for him". Roy stated that as he looked at Harlow, Roy knew that Harlow was talking about killing the victim. Roy then stated to Cuadra that they (Roy and Lockhart) didn't need Kocis to leave the country, and the conversation was switched to another subject."

The other competing version out there is the "Angel of Truth" account, posted on Harlow's blog back in August of 2007. There is an excellent discussion of that account on PC's blog here; the relevant quote from it is as follows:

"Then there is the meeting in Vegas with Sean and Grant, Harlow nor Joe approached Sean or Grant about doing anything to Brian, the conversation was the other way around, there is an existing tape, that is the tape that Joe talks about in his email to Sean. The situation at the restaurnt is not as it believed, Sean and Grant gave a good story but Harlow did them one better by breaking two very expensive glasses in the restaurant when they brought up the demise of Bryan, at that point Harlow knocked over the glasses and asked the wait person for the check to get out of there."

First of all, lets quickly deal with this supposed "existing tape" AoT refers to. It is my belief that 1) the tape does not exist (see the the comments to the PC post to see the reasoning behind my skepticism); and 2) in the incredibly unlikely event that it does exist, it certainly does not record the AoT version of events; read on to see why.

So, that out of the way, what are the differences between the Grant version and AoT version? The way I see it, there are exactly two:

Grant's version: Harlow and Joe bring up murdering Bryan
AoT's version: Sean and Grant bring up murdering Bryan

and

Grant's version: Grant says "no" to murder
AoT's version: Harlow says "no" to murder (by breaking glasses).

Those are the only real differences in the dinner accounts. Every other detail I can think of (ie, they ate lamb, it was expensive, Harlow's credit card company picked up the tab, everyone was stupendously drunk, etc...) both parties pretty much are in agreement with.

So, lets turn to the CCTs, and settle those two little discrepancies, shall we? Starting first with, who first brought up this murder talk?

And here's our answer: From PC's CCTs:

JOSEPH KEREKES: Can I ask you something?





GRANT ROY: What?





JOSEPH KEREKES: Did you tell, did you ever tell your lawyer that we all had maybe talked about anything?




GRANT ROY: Yes.





JOSEPH KEREKES: Oh, he knows about it?





GRANT ROY: I told him we sat down, had a meeting and y'all brought it up.




JOSEPH KEREKES: Yea, the truth.

So! Grant tells Joe that "y'all brought it up" (ie, mention of murder), and Joe's response to that?

"Yea, the truth."

Yea, the truth indeed! NOW we all know the truth; Harlow and Joe first mentions murder, NOT Sean and Grant. Joe actively verifies this, on tape.

So, question one is settled, now onto question two...who at the dinner (if anyone) outright rejected any suggestion of 'Canadian emigration?'

And once again...the CCTs ride to the rescue, answering the burning question:

GRANT ROY: ... ... Ya know when I told you In Vegas, when we were sitting there, and I said, that doesn't need to happen because they're gonna come to me first, and that's exactly what the fuck has been happening, what I've been dealing with, and it's, it's, I'm, I'm not happy and he's' been dealing with it, and he doesn't deserve it, cause he had to fight this Cobra shit for the past two years and now this shit.

And what's Joe response to this? Does he object to the premise, saying "oh no Grant, I don't recall you saying this does not need to happen..." Negative. In fact, the next words out of Joe's mouth are:

JOSEPH KEREKES: I understand if you guys want to leave us alone.

Joe meekly accepts what Grant says to him, without protest.

And Grant's not finished. He wants to make sure Hannon and all the other PA, VA, FBI, DEA, SDPD and NCIS boys in the van did not miss this; so, a little later on he once again mentions BOTH who brought it up, and who nixxed it:

GRANT ROY: When we, when we had dinner and you brought that up, I said no, that doesn't need to happen, go home and read his blog, understand there's twenty fuckin pages that say Brent Corrigan and most of it, is because of this fuckin lawsuit we've been involved with, with Cobra, its so fuckin high profile, if anything happens to fuckin Bryan, they're coming after me and him, and me most likely because I was the one that's been most fuckin vocal about this since day one, screaming for everybody to do. their fuckln jobs.

And does Joe deny any of this? NO:

JOSEPH KEREKES: Have they interviewed. you though?

As you can see, Joe's immediate concern here is not protesting Grant's account...but whether Grant said any of this to the cops or not. :-)

So there you have it, the what-was-said-by-who-in-Vegas question...the question we've ALL been wondering about, ALL this time...is now answered in full. The Grant version is the 100% accurate one: Harlow and Joe brought up the murder, Grant immediately shot the idea down. This was never a murder-for-hire situation; the CCTs prove this.

And the status of the Angel of Truth version? Well, to use an analogy: It's like an expensive wine glass falling off a table, shattering into a million tiny pieces!

Oh, and one final matter of business, which I would be remiss if I failed to mention:

JOSEPH KEREKES: I apologize Grant, for hurting you guys and messing things up, I really do, I messed up our lives too.

And as we all know, you don't apologize for something someone wanted you to do...you apologize for something someone did NOT want you to do.

And as we can all see...ah, well, um...I screwed up. LOL...all these months, I've been calling it by the wrong name...all this time, it shoulda been: The Joe Apology.

Quel embarrassment!


Update: From today's Citizen's Voice: "...Grant Roy, a former suspect in the killing, and his business partner and lover, Sean Lockhart..."