Monday, April 7, 2008

Elm Lied

Well folks, it looks like I was wrong.

I recently accused Elm of being overly gullible, with one of the prime examples being him being misled as to Harlow and Joe's pre-arrest debt (non)payments.

You see, the way I figured it, the folks at Harlow Headquarters fed him a lie, and Elm uncritically accepted it...and then foolishly repeated it as a fact. BUT, like I said, I was wrong. Elm was NOT being gullible. Elm KNEW this was a lie. Elm was a full and knowing participant in spreading this lie. Elm was a liar, just as Jakester, Renee, Angel of "Truth" have all been liars, intentionally spreading bald-faced lies about this case.

And here's the proof: This recently revealed IM chat between PC and Elm, which occured on July 20, 2007:

12:17 AM me: The last I looked there were over 7 accounts that where past-due... and this was last month.
12:18 AM eloise: wll that would be understandable dur to the circumstances
me: Some accounts actually showed a past-due balance before the arrest. ( off the record naturally )
12:19 AM eloise: well I can say this I pay bills when I have the money you probalbly do as well so what is so strange about that
And there you have it. Elm KNOWS Harlow was missing payments before the arrest; PC tells him flat out at 12:18 Harlow was behind before the arrest; at 12:19, Elm even ACKNOWEDGES reciept of the info via a confirmatory statement.

So, Elm knew that Harlow was missing multiple debt payments before the arrest on July 20.

Now, fast forward to this Elm statement which was made on December 6, 2007:

"Hey Jim I find it quite funny that PC's blog shows Joe and Harlow insolvent when infact they were not behind in any of their payments and the main source of their debt was their home and the cars.

So I find that statement of yours ludicrous. Joe and Harlow did not have any financial problems until they were thrown in jail and Virginia Seized all of their assets."
As you can all see...Elm was not "mislead." Elm did not fail to "dig deep enough" in finances he "looked up on [his] own." Elm was not "mistaken." No. Elm lied. Flat out lied. He looked right into our eyes, and unhesitatingly, unflinchingly lied. A full-on, rabbit coat is chinchilla sort of lie. With forethought and premeditation.

And the thing is, this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened on Elm blog. Now, I don't know if he's going to attempt some sort of bullshit rationalization for his lying, as he did back then, but frankly, I could care less. As far as I'm concerned, it's two strikes, you're out.

Elm is now a prooven serial liar, just like Jakester, Renee, Sassy and the Angel of Bullshit. At this point, no fact he asserts on his blog is reliable. His credibility is now zero.

Now, one might argue that Elm blog makes interesting reading for getting Elm's opinion on the case, but when those opinions may very well be supported by lies, what is the value of such an opinion? Very little, in my opinion.

And that highlights the difference between Elm and me. Sometimes one of my beliefs or theories may turn out to be wrong. For example, my theory that Elm was simply gullible...a perfect example of a belief I once held, which I now know to be wrong. When that happens, I will admit my error, and make a correction, ie: Elm is not just gullible, he is a full participating spreader of lies for the Harlow Camp.

But one thing I will NEVER do is intentionally lie to you. I will NOT knowingly misstate a fact (ie, lie), as Elm and other Harlowites have done (repeatedly). That simply will not happen here on this blog. Period.


Update: Elm responds to the charges. He now says "Why would I believe what PC told me..." but as you can see from the IM logs quoted above, he certainly appears to believe it; like I said, at 12:19 AM he acknowedges the information PC has given him; far from disputing it, he attempts to rationalize it. In fact, here are the next two lines in that IM conversation; as you can see, Elm expresses no disbelief or doubt in the fact he was just told; instead he suggests further inquiries be made:

12:20 AM me: There's nothing really strange about it... I'm simply stating what was found.
12:21 AM eloise: If you want to base your reason on why they did this based on their credit report you might want to check the credit reports of a few other people as well
Elm's makes further defensive assertions, but since it is impossible to judge the honesty of them (see above) I really do not see any point in addressing them.


Update 2: "The Jakester" comes to the defense of "Elmysterio," by taking me to task for blogging anonymously.

He also makes some derogatory comments about the undignified practice of online underwear sales as well. Or perhaps he was only talking about those who sell their own used underwear online? In any case, it is unfortunate he did not somehow manage to accuse me of hypocrisy as well, as that would have been amusing on just SO many levels!


Update 3: Off topic, but too cool not to mention...we are a top referrer!


Update 4: Elm's philosophy on financial privacy:

Elm on 7/20/07:

"12:21 AM eloise: If you want to base your reason on why they did this based on their credit report you might want to check the credit reports of a few other people as well"

Elm on 4/9/08:

"I did not feel it my business to delve into the finances like some of you did."
So, in other words, it is OK to delve into the finances of suspects in this case, as long as their names are not Harlow and/or Joe.


Update 5: LOL!

58 comments:

Jared J said...

Lied?

He is the unindicted co-conspirator.

Active defense of Joe and Harlow to cover the accessories after the fact Mr.Elm committed while the pair were in Florida and on their way to San Diego.

The lies cover Mr.Elms work on their behalf and he has no choice. If he is silent or fails to defend he fears exposure.

The Trial will reveal Mr.Elms Conspiracy.

BB said...

have you heard the latest? i was bret too... apparently!

as for elm, surely you knew he was full of crap long before now.

do you have any thoughts or ideas as to why elm is doing this for harlow?

jim said...

BB, like I said in the prior thread (to V.J.) I'm stumped on that question. Completely baffled.

Like I said, if it were me in Elm's shoes, I would have cut my losses on this a loooong time ago.

As this post indicates, we can no longer assume he has been merely misled into helping put two murderers back on the street. He is actively lying in order to do so.

Why? GOOD QUESTION.

Now, perhaps Jared is onto something in that regard...we'll see, it certainly is an intriguing theory (and works better for me than the wanting-a-session-with-Harlow-as-a-reward theory).

Anonymous said...

jim,
Very well put and as with pc, you guys do not say something that you cannot fully back up. So when something like "Elm is a liar" comes out - it has weight, and he is!
I am surprised- I agree that blog of his has zero credibility-
He says he "has moved on" but that is bullshit as well.
He must be one miserable human being-
because although he is acting like he does not have a conscience- I think he does. I do not feel like I could have been THAT wrong about someone- maybe that is just my ego?
why he is doing/has done this for H/J still a mystery.

btw, "ass credit" is a fun game to play IMO - just not with one who is in jail, or a murderer- or both.
:))

jim said...

Well, on second thought, I will comment on one aspect of Elm's reply, because it is clearly only Elm's opinion (he makes no factual claims, dubious or otherwise):

"Do I think that Joe and Harlow would kill Bryan for porn supremacy? There is not that much money in it at the level that they were at. Not enough to cancel out a million dollar debt. Do I think that they wanted to work with Brent Corrigan? I think they did but not enough to kill to do so. Future more I have seen more porn from pay-sites and the major studios than I care to mention and it was all free. So do I think that the porn industry is making bank the answer to that would be NO! There are millions of others who would agree."

And those "millions" are worthless compared to the testimony of one Justin Hensley.

Elm and those "millions" were not in Harlow and Joe's living room, listening to Harlow and Joe go on about how Brent Corrigan was going to make them a million dollars (which as PC notes, happened to be about how much they were in debt, coincidentally enough).

Justin Hensley was there.

Hence, what Justin Hensley says on the subject matters; what Elm and millions (or billions...or trillions...) happen to think does not matter one hill 'o beans.

One single solitary Justin Hensley reigns supreme over Elm and his infinite legions who were not there. And always shall.

Anonymous said...

Please bear with me I know this is almost not worth commenting about-
Jakester- is a bit of a mystery to me- I stopped paying attention to what he had to say [lost credibility to me] last winter.
He strikes me as somebody who is MUCH younger than he says he is.
I know some of you guys have some idea or feel he is someone else
[gotta say I would love to know, but I know that is a no-no here].

The talk about the underwear though is a stretch- really reaching and so immature- jim and rob have shown absolutely no "sexual desire" in any way for Brent and yet these dumb comments about you guys sniffing his underwear.
Jakester has reached into the bottom of the barrel for something to throw at you and elm says
"great post jakester"
Yahhhh!

jim said...

Yeah, this is why I refuse to delink "Jakester." His cluelessness, deceit and unashamed hypocrisy so typifies the pro-Harlow camp that if he did exist, I'd have to invent him.

I mean, with the underwear, hoo boy...talk about hypocrisy! Just look at those links.

The only difference about Brent's Harlow's repective underwear auctions is, Brent is a megastar...so he gets between $1000 and $2000 every auction.

Harlow is a loser and a nobody, so, he gets exactly $0 in bids.

Unknown said...

"Off topic, but too cool not to mention...we are a top referrer!"

Yet, no back links to anyone mentioned. Developing.......

DeWayne In San Diego said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jim said...

Yes, precious of him, isn't it? :-)

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Jim Jakester accuses you of Blogging Anonymously?

Do we know who Jakester is?

No

As for motive in the death of Bryan Kocis the only one that is important is the motive Joe and Harlow believed in.

They Believed killing Bryan would be the answer to their financial Armageddon.

Justin Hensley will testify to that and believe me that will all the jury needs to hear on motive.

jim said...

Lets make an effort to avoid identity speculation here please...we don't want to sink to the level of a Jakester, and go on jihads swearing to "expose" people.

Rob said...

VJ thank you for your comment regarding Jakester's lack of credibility.

Elm's views of this case have changed so many times and have not born fruit. He is a one note harpsicord--formerly, Harlow and Joe are innocent; more recently, Harlow did not do this.

Unfortunately for Elm, the evidence does not bear him out. The two best pieces of evidence against his position, the martyr of justice position, are the BBT's and PHT's.

As for Jakester, he doesn't like Jim or me because we try to use facts to back our claims as opposed to wishful thinking. For as long as those decide to fabricate half-assed crap to substitute for facts, I for one will call their hands. Bank on it.

So Elm does not read CV or TL and misses that the reporter at CV caught Harlow in his lie about being with a john the night of the murder and does what, repeats the very lie on his blog. But Elm is a credible blogger.

Elm repeats a Joe tall tale about a mid-winter's camping trip to PA. And simply says Joe lied. But Elm is a credible blogger.

The Masarati's whereabouts pan out. Grant mentions the same thing in his PHT, Day 2. However, Elm tries to shread the credibility of other eyewitnesses to the Silver SUV leaving Kocis' driveway the night of the murder at circa 8:30 p.m., EST. But Elm is a credible blogger.

Elm tried to tell us that he was not part of a 3-way conferencing call scheme into the holding facility as was Renee. But Elm is a credible blogger.

Yes, Jakester definitely needs Elm.

Some facts from the BBT's, Harlow statements on things he overheard in all of those Kocis phone calls while he was being "interviewed" by Kocis, got me up and checking information. Then an eye opener at Jason's from within 3 days or so of Kocis' murder. The apartment for Sean; Sean as a sexual moneymaker; Sean as the property to be possessed by the winner is way too much of a coincidence by any stretch of the imagination.

Those are facts not the crystal ball, elf told me crap that Elm tries to pass off as fact.

Regarding Jared's list, the most sinister item enumerated is witness tampering which implies contact or attempted contact with the eyewitnesses on the Prosecuter's list.

Anonymous said...

Dewayne mentioned the accusation of jim blogging anonymously??
I was thinking about that earlier,
I have never known jim to blog anonymously quite the contrary- did I miss something?

Anonymous said...

regarding that "top referrer"
That is great! If the owner of such blog is out there- what do you think about opening up for comments? Some of us are building up toxic shock being unable to call Mr Barclay out on his lie after lie.
Something to think about?!

PC said...

Sure Elm lied... what would he and Jakester do otherwise?

Anonymous said...

It seems "The Jakester" feels people have a problem with him because he "is entitled to his opinion" and is being unfairly judged because of doing just that.
No, -
I AM a firm believer in peoples right to their opinion, - the reason why I never had a problem with Elm and his "opinions" - the lies from Elm were a whole other matter altogether. Now with Jakester it is not his "opinions" that put me off, losing credibility etc.
it was what he would say, what he would "come out with" every now and then, some comment that, had it come from a "very slow" 15 year old I would understand but those "special" comments were coming from someone educated and in their 30's [?] blogging about a serious case and in defense of 2 murder suspects.

jim said...

This case is getting interesting once again, IMO.

There has been really no suspense as to Harlow and Joe. The release of the BBTs has dispelled alot of the mysteries we were still wondering about, but the guilt of Harlow and Joe has never been seriously in doubt.

Now, however, a new issue has arisen...are there accessories after the fact out there, waiting to be arrested?

I wonder...

BB said...

elm said he had a 'friend' run a credit report in the early days of this saga. i forget the details, but do not forget the incident.i recall coz we got into a post war when i pointed out what he did was illegal.

jim said...

Ooooh that would be a good quote to dig up...it would not surprise me.

jim said...

And you know, I think I'm recalling the incident...occured on Jason Curious, no?

BB said...

jim, i think it occurred on my blog. i recall the incident well, but not the details. i called him out on it, that is around the time elm played his who is bb game - his way of changing the subject of his illegal actions.

now he is saying i said he said i was bret - not true, just another lame attempt at diverting attention.

elm thinks people are stupid. i wised up to him long before you guys did. now you guys have wised up, he is doing and saying everything he can to change the subject by making lame accusations against others, true to form for elm that is.

jim said...

Yeah, up to this point I've been charitably assuming he was simply being fooled by Harlowites further up the chain into writing what he writes. No longer...it is sadly clear now he's a knowing and willing partner in the deception campaign.

jim said...

And bb, it is obvious you were not "bret."

I think I know now who bret is, but as I'd be breaking my own rule to say so I'm just gonna keep that thought to myself! :-)

BB said...

"bb said...

Elm: A battle of wits? a person is dead and you treat it like a game - lets find Waldo. Look in the mirror, I suspect the answer is there.

Lets face it, your trying to save face here due to your law breaking admission. Elm you committed several crimes. I pointed it out, the best you can come back with is saying I killed Bryan, then go further and accuse me of being involved in child porn. Where is your evidence? Oh thats right you have none.

You clearly have several issues, not my problem. Go get help, or better yet, turn yourself in to the authorities.

Why do I suggest you could be the CobraKiller? there is only one person who invented/claimed that name. I strongly suspect you are him.

Your lame attacks at those who disagree with the rants you spew forth as truth are very telling.

Lastly, if you have any information on the murder of Bryan, it is your duty to report it to the correct authorities. Even if it does incriminate yourself.

April 22, 2007 8:28 AM"

i posted this on elms who is bb thread, i point it out coz the elm credit check revelation was done before this date.

jim while we often disagree - we never got into a pissing match - we do seem to agree on who we think certain posters are. i am pretty sure i know (not personally) who bret was too. i recall coz this was around the same time i was able to identify who the poster howard was.

jim said...

Who did Elm run this credit report on, do you recall?

BB said...

jim am doing some research. it was not on my blog, it was said/done before i started my blog. it was elms blog or JC's.

i'll report my findings here. elm now appears to be a player who is actually directly involved in this saga. many 'things' are falling into place now - all based on past posts.

Unknown said...

wow, it's beginning to look like this spring and summer is going to "reveal" more than just garden flowers and green lawns in a few areas of interest. :-)

C-R-A-Z-Y

Anonymous said...

just when you thought it could not get any stranger???

bb & jim are right, Elm is/has been up to something?-
the details and the why??

Anonymous said...

I noticed, people on blogs do not like having their "legs pulled".
Will give you the "benefit of the doubt" - a long way! but when you lose credibility [not many long term bloggers have IMO] it is gone!!!

BB said...

"jim said...

Who did Elm run this credit report on, do you recall?"

Bryan Kocis.

jim said...

"BB said...
"jim said...

Who did Elm run this credit report on, do you recall?"

Bryan Kocis."

Hmmmmmmm......

PC said...

"Who did Elm run this credit report on, do you recall?"

Bryan Kocis.
"

Would be interesting to know if this was done before, or after Bryan's death.

jim said...

I'm pretty positive it would have been after...still, Bryan's estate was represented by an executor at this time. One of the fiduciary duties of an executor is to preserve the financial privacy of the estate, is it not?

Did Elm not violate the privacy rights of this executor? The answer appears to be yes...

BB said...

Elm did this within weeks of the murder. When I called him on it at the time, he did agree what he did was wrong. He could hardly say otherwise. The law was broken. Elm used a 'friend' to do it. He said his friend worked in the credit industry and did it as a favor for Elm. Naturally, Elm did his best to downplay his actions by saying he was searching for truth.

The funny thing in all of this to me is the BB attacks and accusations continue by those who broke the law. They are hiding something.

BB said...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/
0409081hilton1.html

Anonymous said...

It has crossed my mind that sooner rather than later Harlow may be thinking of Elm as a "complicated little shit" too!
Think about it,
after the conviction, Harlow will have to be incarcerated in a state that allows "same sex marriage".
Then after the ceremony, arranging conjugal visits is bound to be - well, complicated.
The other guys on Harlows floor ARE going to make fun of him no matter what they do in their personal lives and the fact that people SHOULD be able to live as they choose, fact is it will still be looked on as queer behavior.
Complicated!

BB said...

Elm certainly has done nothing to help Harlow and Joe. He has made things worse for them both, and continues to do so. Not the actions of someone who claims to be a seeker of truth - his lame accusations show that to be an outright LIE.

jim said...

" BB said...
Elm certainly has done nothing to help Harlow and Joe. He has made things worse for them both,..."

I think future revelations will bear this out.

Rob said...

PC--

The date of the blog post is April of 2007. If you follow the dialogue here, the implication is post Bryan Kocis' death.

Anonymous said...

Elm,
Maybe you are not in love with Harlow, maybe.
Maybe you are JUST "standing up for the rights of the accused"
I don't think so.
You are THE ONLY ONE standing up for these two [or now one?!]
To get ANY considerably large group to agree on anything IMO is no easy task and does not come naturally, yet here we are with you being the only one in your position.
Jakester does not count.
You see how strange this is?
Could it be just a huge ego on your part,
I don't think so.
You came across [at least to me] to be credible [before]
but you are not.
I guess we will just have to see how this particular segment plays out.

jim said...

Yeah, you notice Elm writes at the end of his last post:

"Funny thing is that we all have an agenda here and some of us have agendas that are more honorable than others. Some are striving for fame, some just what justice, some want to hide the truth and some just want to be right.

My question to you all is which one are you?"

Well, Elm is clearly "some want to hide the truth." You cannot factually lie, and claim to be on the side of truth obviously. When you lie, by definition, you "hide the truth."

So, the agenda question as pertains to Elm is answered.

Me, well, obviously it is "to be right." No secret there, I have said as much many times before. Which if you consider, is the search for truth, pure truth, completely unencumbered by other worldly considerations.

So, there is Elm's agenda question, answered as to me.

Anonymous said...

jim,
You are dead on IMO.
It is frustrating to hear the bullshit-
still cranking out the bullshit even after he has been exposed for at the least- lying, there is probably more but the lying is a fact.

"...all have an agenda here and some of us have agendas that are more honorable than others"
Frustrating-
Elm do you STILL think you are talking to people that have not caught on to you??
Yes, I was slow when it came to you.
Cat is out of the bag.
Give the "honorable" shit a rest, there is nothing honorable in what you did for these two.
I do not think there are a whole lot of people who believe you right about now,
actually Kent Barclay seems to be relating to you rather warmly lately.

Rob said...

"The funny thing in all of this to me is the BB attacks and accusations continue by those who broke the law. They are hiding something."

This is the very special pleading crap that causes me to draw the line. The BB persona has done nothing but pile on unsubstantiated charge after unsubstantiated charge on Sean Lockhart and Grant Roy. That state of affairs started long before 24 Jan. 2007 and at Juicy Goo until the owner booted the discussion from his blog.

Whenever asked to substantiate his charges, all he did in return was go on personal attack. An excellent case in point is Jody Wheeler who was posting on a regular basis and tried to bring some sanity to the posts. Jody got tired of it and left with some sparse posting since.

All of a sudden BB got religion? To quote the Chinchilla "Hmmmm." If Elm was victimizing him, that is not excusable. But than neither is his full attack mode directed at others. For an individual with "clean" hands, the whole tirades smack of deflection of attention. Someone stripped out the mug shot of Cuadra in the email to Sean. I seriously doubt Kocis did that. Absolutely no logic in that action whatsoever. That leaves one other viable option. Hence, Yoda speak doesn't cut it.

Rob said...

Interesting sidebar to the material posted by bloggers to Jason Curious' post of 26/27 Jan 2007. Cad, the British barrister and a Kocis insider/pal, contacted Jason to have the Anonymous comments taken down. Jason refused.

You will recall Cad/Cadinot4ever who had been posting as Anonymous extensively, mostly to dump on Sean and Grant, but also to reveal details from the MOU and Settlement Agreement, despite a Non-Disclosure clause. Cad was Bryan's pal and one of the last people to speak telephonically with Kocis on the evening of his murder.

Why would Cad want Jason, a reporter of a fashion, to remove comments? Poor word choice? Less than appropriate grammar (in Cad's case Edited British English) and mechanics? I think not. Other motives apply.

jim said...

Speaking of Jason Curious, Brent unloaded on him with both barrels in this recent blog post...mostly having to do with simmering frustration over the whole Rolling Stone interview:

http://www.brentcorriganinc.com/blog/?p=96

...which included this postscript in the comments:

"...Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough, but the reason why 8 months later I am now addressing this is because there has been enough time between now and when the article released that time stands on my side in helping to prove I was not involved in that man’s death. After all, Grant and I continue to work and I write from home, no matter how much RS wants to connect us to Bryan’s death (or anyone else for that matter).

These things resurface, and if they’re not true and they are as sensational as Rolling Stone published them to be, then why allow the American public to go on thinking them about me. Oh sure, you could say that most people are smarter than that. But we all know they aren’t. And we all know that just about anyone loves a big dramatic murder mystery, and the more entangled and the more diabolical the key players are the more they care to read or know about it.

I want to stand up and do things for Gay Rights. I want to be THE beacon of hope and change for other boys out there like who I was at age 16, 17 and 18. I want to stand up and speak out. And yes, I want people to take me seriously as an actor, a writer and a director - outside of the adult industry. And unfortunately, setting the record straight here is part of that. It’s easy for some of you to dismiss the validity of something that is so obviously inaccurate, but you’re the . . . . dare I say it? Converted. I’m preaching to the choir here and although it’s important for me to reach all of you on these things, I also need to get my message out to as many people who care to listen.

And THAT is why I choose not to continue to ignore RS in hopes that it will go away.

Comment by Brent — On April 10th, 2008 at 9:43 am"

Rob said...

Sean is quite right. Time is on his side as proving his point, and Grant Roy's point, that neither was involved in Kocis' death.

And, Jason deserves the kick in the ass. He bills himself as a reporter; hence, he has a responsibility to be fair and balanced--objective--and his post of 26 January was slanted anti Sean and Grant without all of the facts being in.

Anonymous said...

IMO,
Jason S. takes the opportunity to give Brent C. a cheap kick in the balls whenever he thinks he can get it done slyly.

BB said...

rob, let me remind you of a few of your lies: you said RW was in kocis house watching murder live on cctv. you rw's car was in kocis driveway, you said RW was photographed at house of kocis night of murder. it is documented. you impersonated a federal agent, also documented.

when your claims were proven wrong, you now blamed elm for making those claims.

it is by simple deduction that i come to the conclusion you know nothing. you will remain clueless to the end.

attacking me will not change that.

BB said...

"Rob said...

Sean is quite right. Time is on his side as proving his point, and Grant Roy's point, that neither was involved in Kocis' death."

ROFLMAO. how are you going to spin this one when your proven wrong? the trial has not yet begun. so much will be exposed then. give elm back his crystal ball. it is proven how fake it is.

Rob said...

Hey BB--

If RW is home alone with the BF is a no count alibi. RW vetted models for Kocis. He did the same for Kocis regarding Danny Moilin/Harlow Cuadra.

As for that Bret post on Jason's blog and the flutter of Anonymous around it, you idiots gave yourselves away, otherwise, Cad, the British barrister couldn't have cared less. As for lies, you have spread more than a McCormack manuer spreader. Bret, the poster at JC's had information on 26/27 January 2007 when blogged that only a Kocis insider could have known. Kocis insiders would include RW, from the PHT's, Bryan's "close friend" and business associate and Cad, the beloved British barrister.

Just have to like those BBT's and oh yes, Sean's insightful comment, regarding derogatory labels being applied to him. Don't you just feel his regard for BB?

Rob said...

BB writes, "how are you going to spin this one when [you're] proven wrong? the trial has not yet begun. so much will be exposed then. give elm back his crystal ball."

Your first question: So far, you have been long on promise and short on delivery. Related: Same crap you spewed in the set up for the the Preliminary Hearing. Grant Roy over an hour of testimony for the Prosecution; Robert Wagner about 15 minutes. Hence, I am not worried about the trial.

Your comment regarding exposure: RW is a witness so is Cad. Both are therefore subject to examination by the Prosecution, followed by cross examination by the Defense. Therefore, exposure is a double-edged sword.

Regarding Elm's crystal ball: Because I do not support Elm's position, and never have, I cannot give back this thing of his I have never possessed. Since you seem to be drooling over some hard surface of his to polish, Elm might share his orb with you.

BB said...

rob, you may think your backtracking works with others, however it does not with me. you fully supported elm and his claims/lies. it is documented. you felt the need to impersonate a federal officer, it too is documented.

fact is, all you claims have so far been proven to be lies.

oyu use jims name and pc's name in a lame attempt to give you back up and credibility. you fail on both accounts.

not once have you been able to offer anything of substance to this murder saga, other than flat out lies.

say what you want, rant all you want, it changes nothing.

Rob said...

BB--

Aren't you cranky? Elm is entirely on his own in what he believes. Harlow and Joe are not blameless in this murder and I have said so many times. Next, you would have to explain why I called Elm on his infamous mid-winter camping trip scenario in July or so of last year. That in itself disproves your premise.

However, you have accused Sean and Grant without proof. I do happen to believe in Jim's and PC's fact based information.

You write "not once have you been able to offer anything of substance to this murder saga, other than flat out lies." So you say. I don't see anyone rallying to your defense, save Cad and he has credibility problems of his own. Yours is classic displacement in action. You attribute your own behavior to others.

BB said...

rob, your comments are funny. you alreadly claimed RW was in kocis house watching murder happen live on cctv, i wont rant about your other RW claims. none of them have been proven, the opposite happened.

as for your relationship with elm, its is yours and yours alone. i never had a relationship with elm.

i need nobody to rally to anything regarding me, nor do i suggest anyone does.

you on the other hand often mention others as cause for back-up of your lies. those you mention, remain silent.

Rob said...

"as for your relationship with elm, its is yours and yours alone. i never had a relationship with elm." So you say.

As for support from others, I do gratefully acknowledge the assist. Aside from Cad, little support has fallen your way.

As for the CCTV and remote capability for same, Kocis had it and used it. As for your whereabouts, that is a ball in the air.

Unknown said...

...Up next on the Jerry Springer "she said...then she said...then she snapped back again, with no less than three snaps and an around the world head boppin' and weavin' attitude yet, AND an Oh don't you go THERE gurl stare down glare..." Spring break, bra strap snapping special, brought to you by Elmo furriers: When faux is key to what you wrap yourself up and in at night...

J-E-R-R-Y...J-E-R-R-Y...J-E-R-R-Y...

BB said...

rob,

yes if you say so dearie.