Wow, where to start with this topic? (hey what a catchy opening line, I'll have to use it more often!)
First of all, I promised to reveal that initial post of mine that Jakester deleted the other day. Now, he's been in Preacher George mode, deleting things left-and-right in a mad panic, but this was the first...this was the horrific comment which set it all off yesterday.
And here it is. WARNING! It is really shocking and obscene. You should make sure small children are not near the computer screen right now.
OK ready? Here goes...you might want to sit down, brace yourself for impact folks, as this comment is REALLY offensive and out there...this is your last warning! If you opt to read on, it is at your own risk. If you notice, I'm writing it in red, so the faint of heart can skip over it more easily.
The comment of mine that Jakester blew a gasket over (and rightly so, no doubt...it's a doozie, folks!) and just HAD to delete is (drum roll......):
Whew! Yeah, heavy, huh? I'll give you all a moment to regain your composure after reading this TRULY DISGUSTING and thus HAD TO BE DELETED by Blakester comment."'Jakester said... I have no doubt that we were all duped by Harlow and Joe. Well more Harlow for me than Joe since I did talk to Harlow a handful of times.'Jakester sees the light! Well well well...
You know, it would be remiss of me now if I did not point out to you that I was right about Harlow and Joe (especially Harlow) all along.
Just thought I'd mention that! :-)"
LOL!
Now, I'm tempted to just end this post here, but there are a few things he's said in his preserved comments that he unsuccessfully (thanks to me) tried to eradicate, that simply demand further comment. First of which is, his claim that he "was a cop for 12 years and then had some medical problems had to hang up the ol’ gun belt and badge and then proceeded with another career. (Paramedic)" Said "medical problem" he later embellished to be a "kidney transplant."
Sorry, no, this does not pass the bullshit test. I know people in emergency services, and a paramedic is at least an equally physically demanding job as a police officer (if not more so). And I can't see a paramedic unit risking legal liability in putting a slower disabled person in such a position...it's literally inviting a lawsuit if a patient dies during transport.
No, the ex-cop part is possibly the truth...but the medical excuse is IMO a lie. My guess, based on profiling his past postings (IE, bad cop stories galore), is that he is a disgruntled ex-policeman, fired for performance reasons...quite possibly for criminal misconduct/corruption while on the job. I think his "bad cop" stories are a means of revenge against the profession that cast him out, and quite possibly a form of pyschological projection as well.
The second thing IMO that does not pass the bullshit test is his stated reason here for getting into Kocis blogging: "...I am originally from Virginia ... and that I still follow a lot of capital cases in my home state."
OK...first of all...this is NOT a Virginia capital case. This is a Pennsylvania capital case. The only media coverage this case got in Virginia were relatively obscure and minor stories, mostly about the forfeiture and extradition...and after H&J were extradited to PA, nothing. There must have been dozens of higher profile murder cases during the same time frame in VA that should have attracted Blakester purported interest as an armchair detective specializing in Old Dominion crime. So...why the Harlow and Joe murder case?
Ah, you might say, the case got a fair amount of national coverage in the gay media (especially the gay porn media), maybe he came across it there? Well, no. If you notice in the comments, he denies being gay. No, he's a straight man...who just happens to be interested in a gay porn murder case, from a state he has NOTHING to do with (Pennsylvania).
Second of all...he mentions Joe writing him 3 letters for canteen money. Really? Just like that, out of the blue? How'd Joe get Blakester's address, I wonder?
And third...he asked Renee to have Harlow call him...why? To get his side of the story, he says. But then, Harlow can't talk about the case to strangers, and so, according to Blakester, he does not. Huh???? As an ex-corrections officer, Blakester should have known that...so, then, what was the point???
So yeah, I think it's very likely that Blakester, a disgruntled ex-Virginia trooper ("If you care to know I also wrote more tickets in a day than most would write in a year") has a personal connection to this case he is not letting onto.
One final observation, this on a statement from his "Final" (if we're lucky) Harlow and Joe post:
"If you have not noticed, I moved on to other cases (long before now). I really have no interest in the continued crap one has to endure to blog about this case."No Blakester, the reason you are fleeing is that I was right about Harlow and Joe all along, you were wrong...and after all the muslinging personal attacks, deliberate misinformation, threats to "out" bloggers, and just plain idiotic statements ("if they are innocent, why did they help the police?") you made in order to put two cold-blooded murderers back on the streets...you are too much of a coward to face that fact.
So long, Blakester! I think it's fair to say you will NOT be missed. Buh bye!
PS: Oh yeah, I also notice in your "Final" H&J post you still manage to express dismay about those "chicken shit" anonymous bloggers in this case (as usual, completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of yourself being a chicken shit anonymous blogger). Well, guess what Blakester...you're gonna get your fondest wish. I'm going to reveal my identity to you.
But not yet. And not here. No, look for me at the trial in PA, September 2. You won't be able to miss me: I'll be the one standing two feet in front of you, laughing in your face.
65 comments:
... you still manage to express dismay about those "chicken shit" anonymous bloggers in this case (as usual, completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of yourself being chicken shit anonymous blogger)."
LOL, so many of them.
Good blog grabbing jim.
Did the one in red happen that same night.
"Gluttony said...
Good blog grabbing jim. Did the one in red happen that same night."
Earlier that morning IIRC.
Yeah and Rob, if it's dealing with an Elm Blog thread, best to keep it on Elm Blog, I think.
Otherwise, we get simulateous threads, cross-posted everywhere...chaos.
"So yeah, I think it's very likely that Blakester, a disgruntled ex-Virginia trooper ("If you care to know I also wrote more tickets in a day than most would write in a year") has a personal connection to this case he is not letting onto."
Care to speculate any further?
simulateous = simultaneous
"Care to speculate any further?"
Maybe, if more info comes to light.
BTW Jim, ever hear from our friend from the Bitchless Blog since this all hit the fan?
We never hear from the Clueless Blog guy, except on the Clueless Blog, these days.
He used to post his Luzerne Cty porn conspiracy theories everywhere in the early days, but got ticked off people thought he was nuts, and so more or less sulked off to his own blog.
Which is actually an ideal solution for all concerned: he gets to post his nonsense to his heart's content, and others can simply avoid his blog if they don't want to run across it. Which I think is most everyone.
I think his last appearance off his blog was on JC Adams. He was not well recieved, to say the least.
As to being effected on his own blog by all that has hit the fan as of late...no. He is impervious to all bad news when it comes to Harlow and Joe. Every court defeat he somehow manages to spin into some sort of victory.
He's a strange bird.
Then you can answer one question for me Jim. Do you believe that claim?
No.
"I think his last appearance off his blog was on JC Adams. He was not well recieved, to say the least."
By you and me! Remember? (Or have you tried to forget?)
Oh yeah, I recall! I'm just hedging in case he put in an appearance some place else I'm unaware of.
Thank you. I did not think you would.
As for the remarks of Jakester, he is an ex something. That he was in communication with Renee as were others, one known was Elm, is not in dispute. He says one thing to seems to thread all together and that is stories were tossed out to throw people off the facts.
I want to hear this testimony within the framework of Mason Banks and Justin Hensley's testimony. That will get us all closer to the truth.
Until then my own experience with Jakester is that he has his own agenda.
Jim said:
"You won't be able to miss me: I'll be the one standing two feet in front of you, laughing in your face."
With a bag over your head? :-)
I mean in that case you would remain "anonymous" and Blake/Jakester wouldn't really be able to miss you. :-)
Well,
JakeBlakester- deserved every bit of that.
Jakester is funny!
He said he is backing away from blogging about the case because of all the crap-
No!
He just could not possibly stay blogging about anything if he did not say something about his stance on this whole affair.
He was right when he said nobody had asked his sexual orientation- nobody asks anyone their sexual orientation around here. I believe we take it for granted the majority of us are gay- who cares, right?
Well, my bullshit detector is signaling red.
Jakeblakester had the "good old- well worn "hots for Harlow"
I do not doubt that for a second-
is he in the closet? maybe,
who cares-
but hots for Harlow -yup.
I also do not believe this "I love blogging about murder case- that nobody gives a rats ass about-
I think he just wanted to deflect attention away from this case because if all of this came out
[which it did in jims last 2 posts]
jakeblakester would look like a fool.
I can't recall Jokester ever making a comment woth responding too. They always seemed like a weak attmept at parody. I did not even know he had a blog.
Jim, was he really serious all this time?
Apparantly.
Are we going to beable to put the abandoned que next to his name in your blog roll.
"I want to hear this testimony within the framework of Mason Banks and Justin Hensley's testimony. That will get us all closer to the truth."
are you saying you do not know the truth now?
many times you have stated what you wrote is the truth.
it is a fair question to ask.
I am saying I want to hear Renee Martin's testimony in the context of what is also stated by Cuadra and Kerekes' associates (escorts employed by Cuadra and Kerekes' business) and acquaintances (friends) Banks and Hensley. These two men overheard conversations at the relevant time period, including, but not limited to, Renee Martin's involvement with the suspected murderers. That kind of testimony gives a more complete picture of what happened and is subject to direct and cross examination.
I don't understand why you want to hear anyones testimony.
You have repeatedly stated on the blogs exactly what you tell as truth happened. Your truth is the opposite of what the authorities and witnesses say happened.
As you did not answer my question.
But you tried.
Rob said...
I am saying I want to hear Renee Martin's testimony in the context of what is also stated by Cuadra and Kerekes' associates (escorts employed by Cuadra and Kerekes' business) and acquaintances (friends) Banks and Hensley. These two men overheard conversations at the relevant time period, including, but not limited to, Renee Martin's involvement with the suspected murderers. That kind of testimony gives a more complete picture of what happened and is subject to direct and cross examination.
NOT robby, sorry you are wrong on this one have no idea who these people are and have never talked to an escort that they had employed or used for services. So you are sadly mistaken dear.
Sorry Renee--
These two guys are from PC's witness list. Chinchilla Jim can tell you as well as myself that the PA State Police and prosecution termed them as confidential informants with information at the relevant time. Both men were present for conversations between Joe and Harlow, and both men will be testifying to what they heard.
Like I said I want to hear ALL of the testimony. What with the statements under oath and all--much better picture of what happened.
A question for you Renee: Joe and Harlow hired you to handle their business?
Incidentally, I did not claim you had conversations with either Mason Banks or Justin Hensley. I stated that I simply want to hear or read the testimony they have to offer. Then, I will make up my mind.
Sure hate to think you distorted my words. Of course, you wouldn't do anything like that because you are quality.
That reminds me, Barry Taylor's interest in Joe's and Harlow's business during the period of January 2007 to May of 2007 was he keeping track of its business mangagement?
Now, BB, why would you not want to hear or read ALL of the testimony?
That is the fullest picture of the truth anyone will be able to obtain in this case.
I may have a theory, but I am not so gauche as to not want to give my attention to the witness testimony, and adjust accordingly as any prudent person would do.
And since you asked Renee, Mason Banks and Justin Hensley both were film models and escorts for the two suspects: worked for them and socialized with them; hence, business associates and friends.
That should clarify matters.
For BB because unlike you I am not making a claim, long since shot down in the face of evidence released to date that Sean Lockhart and/or Grant Roy had any direct, active involvement in killing anyone. That Joe and Harlow attempted to victimize and implicate them in a scheme of their own making goes without saying. Seems that blew up on Joe and Harlow doesn't it? So they sit awaiting trial on murder and arson charges.
What with the passage of time and no evidence against Sean and Grant well if any theory circles the drain and gets processed out, that would.
Renee, Rob is playing his usual games - though he does seem to have toned down some.
The FACT remains, he knows nothing. All his known information comes from the blogs and thin air.
Not an attack, an observation.
Hardly, Renee's witness status is not changed as was claimed at PC's.
Elsewhere, Renee discussed the vehicle with NY tags, couldn't confirm the make or model though but did say that Joe stated he had seen the vehicle with NY tags. That was in answer to your question no less. Is Renee now stepping away from her reply to your question?
Then that 3-way communications scheme of which Elm was part and confirmed by PC.
An observation: You asked why I wanted to hear Mason Banks' and Justin Hensley's testimony. I answered that. If Renee or you want to read more into it, go ahead. Why wouldn't either of you want to know the totality of the testimony? That's the whole point of a hearing or a trial before the judge or jury renders judgment.
Appeal to Renee why? She has told all here that her knowledge is limited. This might explain her defensiveness.
Rob:
You now say "I may have a theory".
That is the oppostie to your previous claims, claims you stated as fact.
What brought about this change?
"Now, BB, why would you not want to hear or read ALL of the testimony?"
Where do you get the ASSUMPTION I do not want to hear and read ALL of the testimony?
"That is the fullest picture of the truth anyone will be able to obtain in this case."
Yes, thats why it puzzles me as to your previous claims presented as facts. You clearly stated and presented exactly what happened, the who, the what, the why and the how. The Robert Wagner claims in particular.
Rob,
Why are you backtracking on your Robert Wagner claims?
The car with NY plates - that nobody has seen other than Joe apparentely - you identified a specific make and model.
Where did you get that information from?
It is a simple direct question that requires a simple direct answer if you can answer.
I suspect Renee and the authorites know for sure the NY tag story was made up.
Nobody reported it, nobody was looking for it.
Why?
It did not exist. Just another product of someones over active imaginagion.
Sean and his CobraKiller are not in the clear. I have no idea how you can claim differently from the authorities.
"Sean and his CobraKiller are not in the clear. I have no idea how you can claim differently from the authorities."
Except for:
Harlow & Joe: In jail;
Sean and Grant: Not in jail.
Which to me, is a pretty conclusive indicator of how the authorities feel about this.
"Except for:
Harlow & Joe: In jail;
Sean and Grant: Not in jail.
Which to me, is a pretty conclusive indicator of how the authorities feel about this."
Indications mean nothing. To date, the authorities have not cleared Sean and his CobraKiller.
We will always be stalemate on this one till it is resolved.
What do you want from them, a press release? :-)
Indicators that H and J are guilty, overwhelming. Indicators that B and G are guilty, non-existent.
Still, in a sense you are correct, they are just indicators. Lots of them. :)
BB--
I will make this simple.
You got a respone from Renee Martin elsewhere regarding what Kerekes saw as he waited on Kocis' property the night of the murder. She specifically responded about the vehicle with NY tags but could not provide the make or model of that vehicle.
I maintain the Nissan Murano with NY tags was on that property and parked at the West Belmont Garage location, where Kocis had instructed his models to park to avoid the ever watchful eyes of Mrs. Hughes.
Renee Martin's statement in response to your question drew that remark.
Sorry BB regarding your long standing belief in Sean and Grant's guilt by association with Harlow and Joe at the Le Cirque dinner. You make the error of ignoring Jim's The Harlow Apology. Live it; embrace it and that truth will set you free. You have not once provided a fact that proves your belief of Sean and Grant's involvement. Jim's statement and reply to you here is the summation of what I believe regarding Sean and Grant's involvement in this death as well.
Next, Renee, despite the spin, is a material witness whose appearance and testimony are compelled by a bail bond--that is the official court record on that matter. In case you have not figured it out by now, hostile witness which is one of the kinds of material witness. The bail bond confirms that point. Frankly, she can deny that until the swallows return to Cappistrano. Her status is what it is according to the court papers. Until, and unless, that status changes I will place her testimony in the context of the two Cuadra and Kerekes' associates I have previously named.
No offense, but Renee Martin isn't Aunt Bea Taylor.
Before I forget, did you say Harlow and Joe employed you to run their business Renee?
Jim and Albert--
Indicators. We've got indicators of Sean and Grant's noninvolement. Lots and lots of indicators.
"Before I forget, did you say Harlow and Joe employed you to run their business Renee?"
IIRC, she pretty strenuously denied it. I think it's back in that 170 comment thread somewhere, I think, but I'm pretty sure she denied it, yes.
AFAIK, she really dealt with the legal defense fund stuff, mostly (right?).
Actually, Renee deflected on that.
The court papers say business associate and that designation came from somewhere in the police investigation that would have turned over their results to the prosecution.
I would like an answer from Renee one way or the other.
And that reminds me, did Renee say she had contact with Barry Taylor?
The legal defense fund is not in dispute so that is not anything I am asking about.
Now, that gets to an interesting point. Whose authority placed Renee in managing Harlow's and Joe's business? I can of think of one person in such a position.
"And that reminds me, did Renee say she had contact with Barry Taylor?"
Yes. A few phone calls, and one FTF meeting IIRC.
In that regard Renee does not disappoint. Barry Taylor sure gets around.
It stands to reason she did talk with him, as she was in charge of paying lawyers (via donations).
She did not form that lofty an opinion of him in those dealings.
Not what I asked. Who hired Renee Martin to run the business? You said it was not Harlow and Joe. From the known record, only one person would have had that authority in the absence of Harlow and Joe.
In so far as the official court record to date is concerned, Renee has not been cooperative; hence, compelled appearance and testimony. Why? Also in the official court record because she is considered a flight risk by the prosecutors and police involved in this murder case. I have heard a weak "Well Renee lives out of state." So do Sean and Grant, no bail bond; so does Robert Wagner, no bail bond. So much for that piece of nonsense.
Most of the information presented here by Renee is self-serving and hedged. Therefore, anything Renee has to say will be relevant and of interest when she is under oath and subject to direct and cross examination and in so far as her testimony is confirmed or not by Mason Banks and Justin Hensley's testimony respectively.
"She did not form that lofty an opinion of him in those dealings."
And it can be surmised that Barry Taylor's opinion of Renee was equally high.
"In so far as the official court record to date is concerned, Renee has not been cooperative."
Actually no. According to PC, on her recent visit to PA she was everything prosecutors could hope for, and more. She "sang like a canary" in sworn depositions. Ie, under oath.
She's certainly been cooperative and candid on these blogs. She's verified exactly what I've been saying about Harlow and Joe since February.
The only person she has show uncooperativeness to has been Kent Barclay, telling him most famously to "piss off." Kent has been in a week-long fit of apoplexy ever since.
I really don't see what your problem with the above facts are, Rob. I have to say, you are coming across as a bit of a nutcase.
"She's verified exactly what I've been saying about Harlow and Joe since February."
And to clarify, that's February of 2007, not 2008.
"jim said...
What do you want from them, a press release? :-)"
No. I want them to put them behind bars where they belong :)
It is only a matter of time.
Time is on the side of the authorities.
Rob:
It is well known by all what you maintain. Not one shred of evidence to back you up. Not one person to back you up.
You are clearly on your own with what you maintain.
As for you Renee rants. She has credibility. The prosecution like her. Whats more they liked the evidence she provided to them.
That indisputable evidence... well you'll find out when it is public knowledge and reported on the blogs.
Again you fail to answer basic direct questions.
The reason is plainly obvious.
Sure Kent, you can post here under three simple conditions:
1) You use your real name (Kent or Kent Barclay). Not your "stage" name or any of your imaginary followers names.
2) You do not link, mention or refer in any way to any site you operate. You use your sites primarily to engage in criminal enterprises such as cyberstalking and extortion, and I will not allow my blog to facilitate that. You have harmed too many people in the past (Gavin Braun, Angel Skye, Joey Hart, Kevin Clarke, etc. etc. etc...) and I refuse to allow that blood on my hands in any way.
3) You will not otherwise misrepresent your status, wealth, living situation, influence in the industry, city of residence, or any other biographical detail of your life in any of your comments.
So under those very reasonable conditions...post away. I'm sure we'd all be happy to hear what a guy like Kent Barclay, an unemployed internet junkie couch-surfing rent free in his mom's Boston area welfare housing, has to say about this case (or any other matters covered here).
Sorry Jim--
Her status is material witness and compelled to testify by bail bond--that's court record. Not PC's opinion, yours or mine, but what the court and prosecution and state police have placed in the record regarding her status which was supposed to change and has not.
Now, I asked a question. Who hired Renee Martin? Obviously, not Joe or Harlow. That leaves one individual with that authority in law at the time in question.
At best, Renee Martin's information has questionable reliability until placed in context with others' testimony.
"Rob. I have to say, you are coming across as a bit of a nutcase."
A BIT? Rob placed RW in closet upstairs of Kocis house night of murder. Rob said RW watched murder happen on CCTV in a bedroom closet. Rob said RW had his car parked in Kocis driveway night of murder. Rob said he walked by RW in the street and said "hi" at a time RW was not in the USA.
Rob hates the FACT Renee killed off many of his claims. Rob hates the FACT Renee knows more facts than he does. Rob hates the FACT Renee is THE STAR WITNESS against Joe and Harlow. Rob hates the FACT not onbe of his claims has proven to be true.
So... he attacks, rants and makes accusations he can not back up.
BB replies to Jim "No. I want them to put them behind bars where they belong[.]"
On what wishful thinking? Won't happen and should not.
BB writes "[Renee] has credibility." The kind of credibility that the COURT has compelled with a bail bond because she is a flight risk in the opinion of the state police and prosecutors. Can't get better "credibility" than that ringing endorsement from officialdom.
I think whatever doubts the prosecutors may have had about Renee's potential cooperation vanished after her deposition got taken a couple weeks ago. Like PC reported, she "sang like a canary." I don't understand why you are unable to process this fact. She's one of the good guys now; she's on our side.
Any indications otherwise from the prosecutors bail motion stem perhaps from those now dispelled pre-depo doubts. The stuff about flight risk and such was probably just the prosecutor's office on auto-pilot, based on their earlier erroneous pessimism.
And in any case, PC has reported that similar bail arrangements with all other out of state witnesses. Presumably, this includes Sean and Grant.
So Rob, you appear to be completely misrepresenting Renee's role as a key pro-prosecution witness here.
And as you believe (as I do) in the guilt of Harlow and Joe, I am frankly puzzled why you feel the constant need to shoot one of own soldiers in the back at this point.
In any case, I've heard enough on this, we are just going in circles, so I am cutting this digressive discussion off.
jim said...
"Before I forget, did you say Harlow and Joe employed you to run their business Renee?"
IIRC, she pretty strenuously denied it. I think it's back in that 170 comment thread somewhere, I think, but I'm pretty sure she denied it, yes.
Jim in answer to your question, no i did not run there business, joe was running it from jail, he would send pages and pages of instructions to me in writing through the mail and then i would type them on instant messenger to his webmaster, i do not see where typing shit makes me a business associate, i have been labeled this becuase joe said this to another inmate and we all know what joe has to say is all lies.... so hmmmm , rob what your telling me now is that joe is oh so truthful and never lied, except for me being a business associate, thats a good one, better go back to dreaming on that one...
Ah, that makes sense. That settles that. Thanks Renee!
Renee I said no such thing and you know it regarding Joe's credibility. I simply asked who employed you.
Thank you for the clarification.
For Jim: No disrespect was intended of you. I like your work and your style. I simply sought clarification on that point.
Rob:
Who employs you?
jim said...
Ah, that makes sense. That settles that. Thanks Renee!
Anytime Jim, when a civilized person asks a question and they dont manipulate the answer i have no reason not to answer, and as usual you never manipulate it like others.
have a wonderful evening
Post a Comment