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?
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:
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:
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:
And does Joe deny any of this? NO:
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:
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..."
84 comments:
Maybe I am reading to much into it. But Joe says "I messed up our lives too." Not "we", "I". Does he just admit he is the actual murderer AND/OR the mastermind behind the deed?
You know, that's how I would read it, yes.
He's certainly no wallflower in all this, given a statement like that.
But you know, given what Harlow says on both the CCTs and the BBTs the next day...I would not exactly call him a wallflower in all this either.
Thank you Jim! Thank you...
There's the Joe apology, and what you called the Harlow apology.
Where's the BB apology?
"Where's the BB apology?"
apology for what?
BB said...
"Where's the BB apology?"
apology for what?
Sigh. How about "Sean and his Cobrakiller put them up to it." Or the Golden Oldie, "Sean and his Cobrakiller have blood on their hands."
Or didn't you read Jim's post?
will,
jims post changes nothing. sean and his cobrakiller will always have blood on their hands.
bryan is dead coz of them.
"Special Events"
Make Your Occasion Unforgettable
LOL!!,
That is classic!!!
It's the perfect setting for a special moment! :-)
I would not exactly call him a wallflower in all this either.
Well, I am still very ambivalent about Harlow. It depends on my mood and what I just read whether I think of him as a personality that does as he is told or a personality that acts independently. The impression of him being a dependent personality prevails. However, he seems to act very confident as long as he feels backed up by someone.
And your last picture: Hilarious!
bb, Bryan Kocis is dead as the proximate result of his own gross immorality. Michael Kocis and the brother in law and all the bitter Kocis partisans need to get with that. It reads like a Chaucer story, maybe the Pardoner's Tale, where the characters bring about their violent end through their own tragic flaws and immoral acts. I wonder if Kocis had a Catholic funeral mass said for him and was buried in sacred ground?
bb said,
bryan is dead coz of them.
In a way you're right. H&J wanted Sean to perform with them under the name "Brent Corrigan." They left Las Vegas thinking, erroneously, that this could happen only if Bryan Kocis were removed from the picture.
I say "erroneously" because what Jim has referred to as "Harlow's Apology" and now "Joe's Apology" that both realized at the time of the San Diego/La Jolla tapings that there understanding of the Le Cirque conversations was incorrect.
Whatever. Suppose it was correct? The only evidence that it was would be their testimony to that effect. Would the law enforcement authorities use the testimony of two convicted murderers (either by plea bargain or by jury) to seek a warrant for the arrest of Grant and Sean, who have been cooperating with the authorities since shortly after the murder? If the authorities did bring charges against them, would a jury convict them, especially given the statement by the prosecution that H&J's statements that Grant and Sean were "responsible" for the murder were false. (You, bb, have misquoted this statement elsewhere, saying only that it said that it was false to say that Grant and Sean committed the murder).
The evidence is overwhelming that Bryan Kocis is dead because of a misunderstanding by H&J of what was said at the Le Cirque dinner.
Jim,
Any idea as to the identity of the "Angel of Truth" who was operating Harlow's blog in August 2007, several months after he had been imprisoned?
I seem to recall some speculation that it might have been Renee Martin.
My theory is very close to yours, Prof. I think the misunderstanding after the Le Cirque dinner was one of timing. Both thought they might be able to "trade scenes" down the road, after the settlement. Harlow and Joe thought this would be a matter of days.
Brent and Grant, OTOH, were likely thinking months.
Joe got the rude awakening as to this misunderstanding during the subsequent "hang-up call" with Grant. You see Grant refer to that call in the CCTs in detail as well. Personally, I think that call was the critical causative event prior to the murder...NOT the Le Cirque dinner.
As you see verified in the CCTs, Grant basically told Joe "stop rushing us, fuck off" when Joe called, demanding a blog post from Brent.
OK, so, now Harlow and Joe are clued in, it'll take months, not days, before the settlement dust clears. So, why didn't they just wait those months, you ask?
Well, here's your answer:
http://handjtrial.blogspot.com/2007/12/harlow-cuadra-and-joseph-kerekes-debt.html
Harlow and Joe were drowning in debt. They could not wait months. They needed scenes they could put on their site right away, and start start enrolling new Boybatter customers immediately.
So, after the hang up call, out of pure financial desperation they devised the murder plan. They hoped the death of Kocis would torpedo the settlement, and free them up to film in days as they first thought.
You can see how important this debt info on Harlow and Jow is; it literally explains EVERYTHING as to the motive for this crime.
And you can see why we bloggers have been threatened with arrest and lawsuit by Harlow supporters, for revealing this debt info, and why they have been manipulating bloggers and spreading misinformation to hide this debt from us. Like I said, it's the critical piece in this puzzle.
I vaguely recall PC saying on his blog that she was a Cuadra family relative, with the first name "Angelica" (or "Angela?")..
"Ree" did edit the blog for a while at first, before AoT took over, but she was a comical disaster of epic proportions. :-)
"I vaguely recall PC saying on his blog that she was a Cuadra family relative, with the first name "Angelica" (or "Angela?").."
Harlow's sister did spend some time writing the blog, along with Renee, and a few others... it was a joint effort that became a colossal mess.
Oh, and the fact that they left the most vicious looking pictures of Harlow up, his nasty ramblings, his proven untouchable attitude all over the site. The Stud Wonder will be free once the rest of the story is told at trial.
That was the alarming part of Harlow's original posts from jail. He never said that there was a ton of false info, just that there was much more to the story, and it has yet to be told.
The only part I can see as yet untold is where Harlow and Joe each blame each other at trial for the murder. It generally comes down to that once both are tied completely to the crime scene, and each wishes to use the last gasp attempt at some kind of freedom someday.
Here is what happens (below) most often when that defense strategy is unitized. See the video link, which is the "Black's Beach Tapes in this case
-----------
In an unrelated case, which I'd been following along with this one:
A 75-year-old woman accused of killing homeless men for insurance money had no knowledge that her partner in crime was planning murder as a part of the plot, her attorney argued Friday.
Olga Rutterschmidt lacked savvy, was “simple-minded” and even “stupid,” said Michael Sklar, the deputy public defender who chose earlier in the week not to call any witnesses, saying the prosecution had failed to tie his client to the hit-and-run deaths of Kenneth McDavid, 50, and Paul Vados, 73.
'Little old lady' framed, defense suggests
“I can’t tell you how a person can be that stupid. I can only tell you that she was,” Sklar said, alleging that co-defendant Helen Golay, 77, planned the murders but kept Rutterschmidt in the dark throughout the scheme that spanned at least eight years and targeted several men. The evidence shows that Golay committed McDavid’s murder, Sklar said.
But a Los Angeles judge quickly dismissed at least half a dozen witnesses Diamond had planned to call on behalf of Helen Golay, leaving the defense little recourse but to try to convince jurors of their theory based largely on the prosecution's evidence.
"The good news is that I'll be able to argue this point; in a way it is because I was so successful in my cross-examination of prosecution witnesses," Diamond said outside court.
here is the equivlent of the BBTs in this case, but in video form.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-olgahelen8apr08,0,4878492.story
BUT THINGS DID NOT GO SO WELL AT TRIAL, NOR AT SENTENCING:
Olga Rutterschmidt and Helen Golay Sentenced
On the 15th of July, 2008, 75-year-old Olga Rutterschmidt and 77-year-old Helen Golay were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for their murder of two homeless men that were insured for a combined total of 2.8 million dollars.
According to the judge who sentenced the two women:
These unfortunate men were sacrificed on your altars of greed.
L.A. County Superior Court Judge David S. Wesley couldn’t help but point out again the fact that Olga Rutterschmidt had berated her partner, Helen Golay, for displaying the characteristic that they both shared:
During this trial, Ms. Rutterschmidt, you recognized something in Ms. Golay that you had not recognized of yourself when you pointed your finger at her and said, ‘You’re greedy,’
Despite the defiant attitude of both women during their sentencing, their lawyers insisted that the pair were ‘upset’ and insisted on their clients’ innocence.
Both women have had appeals filed on their behalf.
Jim, that was a piece of art and had your great sense of humor to boot. Even the comments are insightful,....except of course,...
BB--
"will,
jims post changes nothing. sean and his cobrakiller will always have blood on their hands.
bryan is dead coz of them."
HOW DARE YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CLAIM THAT I CONTEND WITHOUT PROOF WHEN YOU BLOG AFTER READING THE TRANSCRIPT ACCOUNTS THAT HARLOW AND JOE MURDERED YOUR BOSS? I HAVE CONTACTED THE APPROPRIATE PERSONS AND I WILL HAVE THE MY FACT CHECKED.
YOU GET THIS STRAIGHT, THESE TAPES RECORD THE WORDS OF THE PRINCIPLES. AND JIM IS QUITE CORRECT ABOUT APOLOGIES, THE HARLOW APOLOGY AND THE JOE APOLOGY.
DENY ALL YOU WANT. MAKE NO MISTAKE YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING TO UNDERMINE WITNESS CREDIBILITY FROM THE BEGINNING.
FROM THE BEGINNING YOU HAVE PURPOSELY BAITED GRANT ROY. YOUR EPHEBOPHIC, RAPING BOSS TRIED TO COVER HIS HIDE AND YOU ARE PART OF IT.
Oh yes, the old saws about Blood on their hands. My experience has been the one making that claim the most often does not have clean hands himself.
I WILL MAKE THIS SIMPLE. PROVE INVOLVEMENT. THE DA SAYS CLEARED SO YOU ARE OUT ON A BIG LIMB ALL BY YOURSELF. WE ARE ALL TIRED OF MANTRAISTIC GLARING GENERALITY WITHOUT PROOF.
Jim, I think it may be time for you to once again make an appearance in the JC Adams threads. Our friend is back:
http://www.gayporntimes.com/hardnews/2008/08/04/crime-blotter-paper-deconstructs-cuadra-kerekes-alibis/
HA! HARDLY NECESSARY for me to post, Will, as you (AND PC!) just gave him a bitch slap he will NOT soon recover from!
That blithering idiot has been foaming at the mouth about "time of death" now since this whole murder case began. You see, his pet theory has been Kocis was killed some day before the 24th...possibly in San Diego!...then his body transported to the Kocis home on the 24th for burning, and pooooo lil Harlow framed!
Yes I kid you not! Bryan Kocis, mudered on his visit to San Diego days before! Then presumably, loaded on a plane (business class at least, I would hope!) and flown to LC for Harlow framing.
I was the one who coined this the "Weekend at Bernie's theory of the crime."
So, HA HA HA...his head must have EXPLODED whe he read that, HA! The Clueless Blogger's favorite conspiracy theory, dowwwwwn in flames! Heee hee hee hee, HA HA HA HA!
Oh no Will, you just did wonderfully! I need add nothing to what you just wrote! To see "Peter Everhard" get publically humilated like that, so smoothly, so elegantly...first thing I read when I turn on the computer...oh, you know this is gonna be a great day when it starts off with something this beautiful! Hee hee heeeee! :-D
Why thank you. What would we do without PC?!
rob not one of your claims has been proven as truth. get of your high horse and tell us ALL why you spread so many proven lies? IOW put up or...
is Peter Everhard a 'friend' of sean or the cobrakiller?
who is he?
"What would we do without PC?!"
rewrite history? lol j/k.
"BB said...
is Peter Everhard a 'friend' of sean or the cobrakiller?
Hardly. No friend of Bryan either. Or Luzerne County. Or whites. Or women. Or the legal profession in general...
In other words, he hates pretty much everybody...except for some unknown reason, Harlow.
The Bitchless Blogger's latest installment talks about a possible impersonator. And they obviously start to believe into an eyewitness as soon as they read about it in the press. Do they want to read about it in the same press they just bashed a few hours earlier?
Amusing. Very amusing.
Yep, he never gives up!
Bigfoot!!!
Soon he'll start calling everybody "retards."
I received a response to my inquiry from LC DA's Office. I had to wait 2 days while that ADA worked through other unrelated court business. I asked about the statement clearing the 3 witnesses and indicated that, because of privacy issues, I was not interested in the content of the document, merely the length, because it was my understanding that the LC DA's office found the 3named witnesses, Grant Roy, Sean Lockhart, and Robert Wagner noncomplicit in the murder of Bryan Kocis.
I was told the statement is 4 pages: the 1st page provides identifying information of the witness; pages 2 and 3 provides information detailing the kind of cooperation given the authorities; and the 4th page is a signature page with the names of Jacqueline Musto-Carroll, DA and countersigned by the lead ADA Michael Melnick and the date approving the statement.
I was told that this longer statement was the basis for the summary in paragraph V, subparagraph (B), captioned False Accusations and found in the Commonwealth's Answer to Defendant Harlow Cuadra's Omnibus Pre-trial Motions.
A summary. That jives with what the law and order desk assistant editor of the Times Leader told me. It also jives with what her counterpart at the Citizen's Voice said.
And, a receipient of a copy of said statement, Grant Roy said to his friend, Dewayne.
4 points of fact checking.
Well thats just peachy! Are you going to obtain and post a copy?
That gets to a privacy issue that requires permission of the witness. Thank you for asking.
OK, well then, the whole point of this exercise seems to have just sailed over you head, apparantly.
The goal all along has been to source up and confirm facts. To seperate fact from fiction; that which is confirmable via posted sources everyone can consult, versus merely oral claims in blog comment sections.
So, right now, the alleged "4-page extended clearing statement" remains just that: alledged.
And I suppose you'll want to now take this opportunity to publically apologize to PC. After all, it was hypocritical of you to attack him for not posting this alledged "4-page extended clearing statement" when you yourself now say it is wrong to do so, due to "a privacy issue."
"I was told the statement is 4 pages: the 1st page provides identifying information of the witness; pages 2 and 3 provides information detailing the kind of cooperation given the authorities; and the 4th page is a signature page with the names of Jacqueline Musto-Carroll, DA and countersigned by the lead ADA Michael Melnick and the date approving the statement."
Interesting since the DA's office isn't supposed to talk about this (and I doubt they did).
Secondly, every document I've seen filed by the DA's office (and there's been a lot) have all had four signatures... Jacqueline Musto Carroll, Michael S. Melnick, Shannon Crake, and Timothy M. Dohery /or/ Allyson Kacmarski... including the document you accuse me of holding back on.
Why would this mystery document be different?
I WILL MAKE THIS SIMPLE. PROVE THE DOCUMENTS EXIST. THE FAILURE TO DO SO PUTS YOU OUT ON A BIG LIMB ALL BY YOURSELF. WE ARE ALL TIRED OF MANTRAISTIC GLARING GENERALITY WITHOUT PROOF.
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE.
rob,
Why are you doing this?
I really hope this case is not getting the best of you.
Rob, I think a posting of your got lost due to a Blogger glitch.
I was approving posts close to a scheduled downtime, and I think one of yours that I tried to send through may have fallen into a black hole instead (unless you deleted it?).
Jim--
I was asked to get confirmation as to the length of the clearing statements issued by the LC DA's Office to the 3 named witnesses. I did so.
When I called the Clerk of Court's office on Monday, I was referred to the DA's office because the statements WERE NOT REQUIRED COURT FILINGS.
Because those clearing statements are not filed with the Clerk's Office and therefore, not a public or even required court document, privacy issues attach. Neither you, PC, nor I have standing to be able to request the production of any of those clearing statements. If you want a copy of a statement, I would strongly suggest asking Grant Roy politely to share/characterize the content of the clearing statement he received.
As to signatures, I was told Musto-Carroll and Melnick and the date of the signatures. They were the principles involved.
Well, he's made the third comment in this thread, so no doubt he'll read this soon...far be it from me to suggest anything to him, but if he wants to leap into this, he's more than welcome.
Personally, I find myself losing interest in this with each passing post...
I WILL MAKE THIS SIMPLE. PROVE THEY HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. THE FAILURE TO DO SO PUTS YOU OUT ON A BIG LIMB ALL BY YOURSELF. WE ARE ALL TIRED OF MANTRAISTIC GLARING GENERALITY WITHOUT PROOF.
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE.
"I would strongly suggest asking Grant Roy politely to share/characterize the content of the clearing statement he received."
you CLAIMED PC had a 4-page extended clearing statement, and held back some pages.
NOW you say: "Neither you, PC, nor I have standing to be able to request the production of any of those clearing statements."
"And, a receipient of a copy of said statement, Grant Roy said to his friend, Dewayne."
here you admit what the cobrakiller tells you to post (via dewayne).
why is Dewayne not backing up your claim?
REGARDLESS, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS SOLELY YOURS.
YOU FAILED.
BB--
I was asked to confirm page length. I did so. The statement clearing the witnesses is not a court required document and not on file with the Clerk of Court. I was referred to the office responsible for the statement. If you want content, it is up to the witness to grant permission.
Next, I have 4 sources for the length of the clearing statement. That is 4 more sources than you obtain for anything but generalized bile.
The clearing statement is the basis for Paragraph V, subparagraph B, False Accusations which states, paraphrased, that the 3 witnesses are cleared of complicity.
Actually, PC claimed I had a 4 page extended document--that would mean on its face, more than 4 pages. I made no such claim as to possessing a copy of the clearing statement because it is issued in the names of the 3 cleared witnesses and is not a court required filing. I said 4 pages and 4 pages was the answer.
Ah another BB grand pronouncement without merit.
BB you have no problem addressing Grant. Ask nicely and perhaps he will deign to answer you.
And then if Grant does not answer you, it might be that he finds you not worth his time because you aren't interested in truth, merely smearing people.
" Rob said...
BB--
I was asked to confirm page length."
Actually no. No one cared a whit about the page length. And I'm certain I speak for not only myself, but everyone else here as well.
We all wanted to see a copy of the actual document. We did not want bedtime stories about you talking to clerks and DAs and reporters. And we certainly did not give a flying fornication many pages it supposedly was. We wanted to see and read the document.
We could not have POSSIBLY made that more clear to you at the outset. If you really went through all those steps you did...then you've wasted not only our time but yours as well. Much like you did earlier, sending me on a wild goose chase looking for references to hidden cameras in "A Siren's Tale."
This alledged document has morphed several times in your telling of it. First, it was a filing that PC had nafariously omitted. THEN it became a filing that should not be disclosed, due to "privacy issues."
And now..it's morphed again. It's not even a filing, you say now. It's a mysterious 4 page document which apparantly no one but the DA and a select few witnesses (?!) are allowed to read. And that no one else can read except by permission of said witnesses (?!).
Rob, you keep digging a deeper hole for yourself with each passing post. I really think you should consider quitting on this while your behind.
But hey, it's your funeral...you want to keep going like this, be my guest.
sorry to interupt but that last comment was funny!!!!!lol!
Another promise on which Rob has yet to deliver: on PC's blog he said that Grant had filed a complaint with the DA's office regarding the "harassment" by the Kocis family. He was asked to provide a copy of the complaint and replied that the DA's office was closed for the night. That was several days ago and he still hasn't produced the evidence.
rob, regardless of your rants and lies -
REGARDLESS, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS SOLELY YOURS.
YOU FAILED.
TRYING TO CONFUSE ISSUES FAILED.
YOU ADMITTED YOU ARE DEWAYNES MOUTH PIECE.
SPEAKS VOLUMES DOES THAT.
"I WILL MAKE THIS SIMPLE. PROVE THEY HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. THE FAILURE TO DO SO PUTS YOU OUT ON A BIG LIMB ALL BY YOURSELF. WE ARE ALL TIRED OF MANTRAISTIC GLARING GENERALITY WITHOUT PROOF.
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE."
albert, this will be proven when the current criminal trial is over. however, dont take my word for it, time will tell :)
" prof said...
Another promise on which Rob has yet to deliver: on PC's blog he said that Grant had filed a complaint with the DA's office regarding the "harassment" by the Kocis family."
Actually, I'm not going to fault Rob on that one.
If I were in Melnick's shoes in this case, I can tell you EXACTLY where I'd be filing all these "written protests," be they from Grant, Renee, Kent or whomoever: in what is known in office jargon as the ole "circular file."
and now we see Robert Wagner is not on the new updated witness list.
there is a VERY GOOD reason for that.
he was not involved, he had no information.
Sean and his CobraKiller however remain central to all events (from the moment the CobraKiller sought out Harlow online) leading up to the murder.
Lets see how the spin the absence of Wagner :)
anyone know how many of the former Cobra models (other than Sean) still fuck for a living?
bb said,
albert, this will be proven when the current criminal trial is over. however, dont take my word for it, time will tell :)
bb, you will almost certainly be proven wrong. Although I have agreed with you that Sean and Grant are, in a way, a "cause" of Bryan Kocis's murder, there is essentially no evidence that they are criminally responsible. There is no evidence to justify their arrest (read the Affidavit of Probable Cause that led to the arrests of Harlow and Joe). There is even less evidence that would meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" required for a criminal conviction.
And the DA has said that the claim by H&J were "responsible" for the murder of Kocis was false. Given this, it would be stupid of the DA to bring charges against Grant and Sean; they would only quote his own words against him.
You're so hostile to Grant and Sean that you're totally out of touch with reality.
"BB said...
and now we see Robert Wagner is not on the new updated witness list.
there is a VERY GOOD reason for that.
he was not involved, he had no information."
You mean to say, he was left off the prosecution list of ALIBI REBUTTAL WITNESSES.
Meaning RW can still be called as a witness, for any other purpose other than rebutting Joe's alibi.
In fact, it would totally astound me if he were not called at all. He played a key role in the eventual capture of H&J, proving police with the "Drake" photo.
The fact that he's off the 385 list (now the 90-some list) just means prosecutors felt they wouldn't need him to rebut Joe's alibi. They were under orders to pair down the list, and since RW contributed relatively little to the alibi question, off he went.
But no, he'll still have to be called as a witness, to testify as to the "Drake" photo. And maybe pertaining to other matters as well.
"But no, he'll still have to be called as a witness, to testify as to the "Drake" photo. And maybe pertaining to other matters as well."
That could happen. Fact is, he has little to offer and is hardly considered an important witness - despite the claims of others.
You mean to say, he was left off the prosecution list of ALIBI REBUTTAL WITNESSES.
Which means the months old rumour that RW saw everything via CCTV is finally put to rest.
BB said...
"Lets see how they spin the absence of Wagner :)"
I think Jim proved that you are the one spinning his "absence." :)
BB said...
"albert, this will be proven when the current criminal trial is over. however, dont take my word for it, time will tell :)"
BB, I am nobody's mouthpiece or cheerleader. I like to deal with facts. You and Jim are very correct to press Rob to back up his claims with facts. However, you also unfortunately ignore facts when they don't fit your agenda. You ignore the fact that the CCT's and BBT's show Grant and Sean to be completely innocent. You ignore the fact of the DA's own document that says he will not be "dealing with" Sean and Grant after the trial.
Here is one more fact for you to ignore. It is called DISCOVERY, defined as "the compulsory disclosure, as of facts or documents," which in a criminal case compels the prosecution to turn over EVERYTHING to the defense. That would, of course, mean that the defense even now posesses all of the prosecution's records as they relate to Sean and Grant.
Therefore, it is a FACT that there can be nothing new coming to light about them AFTER the trial. In fact, if that were to happen it would mean a certain reversal of any convictions the prosecution obtains in this case on appeal. It would also mean severe sanctions, perhaps even jail, for the prosecutor.
So unless the prosecution turns around BEFORE, or perhaps even DURING the trial, and charges Sean and Grant, there is absolutely no possibility of that happening AFTER the trial. Those are the FACTS.
"That could happen. Fact is, he has little to offer and is hardly considered an important witness - despite the claims of others."
Well...one one hand, I agree with you, bb. But on another hand, I'm not so sure.
IMO, RW had nothing to do criminally with this murder. As you know I have been saying this since day one.
HOWEVER, as you also know, the Harlow defense team has been saying differently. They've been trying to point the blame RW, coming up with an alternate theory of the crime whereby he was the actual murderer. And you look back, you can see who first dreamed up this story...Harlow PI Cheryl "Sassy" Conrad.
All things considered, I think they would have rather tried to point the finger at Sean and Grant only...but they were too far away. So, they settled on RW as the actual hit man out of geographical necessity.
This is why "Sassy" and Elm have been so adamant about how wide Bryan's driveway was, and getting into talmudic arguments as to whether RW's car could have fit there side by side next to the SUV.
This is also why the DA included RW in the "False Accusations" paragraph.
So, you know, whether or not RW becomes an "important witness" or not depends on whether Sassy and company are still insistent on framing RW as part of their "Plan B express."
Wishful thinking on BB's part regarding Robert Wagner's potential testimony.
Other witnesses not on the Potential Alibi Witness List at this point are Cad (British attorney and Kocis friend); Sean Macias, Kocis' attorney and one of the last associates to speak with Kocis telephonically; Lee Bergeron who also was one of the last people to speak with Kocis telephonically regarding the backdoor deal as to Sean's future sans Grant; the female attorney with knowledge of the backdoor deal (her name escapes me at the moment). The last two sentences of the Commonwealth's Response, a required filing with the Clerk of the Court leaves that door wide open if the necessity arises to add witnesses.
Long story short, Robert Wagner ought not to be thinking he won't be called--his week long stay in Kocis' home alone pre-murder on its own makes him fair game for the defense to question him on direct examination in their portion of the trial as well as on cross examination in prosecutor's case.
rob any words from you mean absolutely nothing. your a proven liar.
will, as i said, time will tell.
Another glaring generality from BB.
Jim writes, "On the BBTs, when Harlow tells them about the condo plan...Brent interjects that Lee had recently offered to put Brent up in an apartment:
"SEAN LOCKHART: Grant, remember when he offered me that apartment?
HARLOW CUADRA: Yea, there ya go, how the fuck did I know that? Except it was gonna be a Condo,..."
How the f*** did Harlow know that, indeed. So basically, while Harlow may have embellished a bit...there is a huge kernel of truth to the story for certain.
The mere fact that Lee and Bryan are talking like this, conspiratorily behind Sean and Grant's back while the lawsuit is still technically pending (the final settlement was still unsigned at this point) is damning enough."
Now, this conspiracy, to use your term, is something that I stated back in December/January and, as the posts allowed, from that point forward. A blogger named "Brett" made reference to this deal 3 days after Kocis' murder at Jason Curious' blog. The backdoor deal information was certainly not public knowledge at the time. Who knew of it? Harlow, overheard on Kocis' end of the phone call; Lee Bergeron who was one of the masterminds of the condo/escort/film model Sean as money machine scheme for himself and Kocis; Kocis himself for the very same Bergeron reason plus revenge on Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart; Sean Macias, Kocis' lawyer; and I maintain one other unnamed and not Joe Kerekes. If Kerekes had overheard this himself he would have stated this on the BBT's when Harlow brought it up. He did not. In fact, on that point, Kerekes let Harlow do the talking.
The 4 named individuals have no reason to detail their scheme publicly after the murder of one of their fellow schemers and would not for the reason you state, CONSPIRACY, a criminal one (white slavery, violating the Mann Act) and a civil one, fraud, violations of fiduciary duty owed to Grant and Sean as his business partners as well as misrepresentation in material facts. Now this factor leaves the door open as to the fifth person knowing details of the backdoor deal. That individual has to be someone Kocis would have been likely to impart the knowledge in the first place. Kerekes does not fit the bill because Joe was outside and knew nothing of the backdoor deal discussion. It is known that Kocis gave Harlow a tour of the ground floor (the living room floor) and some part of the basement. The upstairs look-around came after Kocis was killed.
Jim--
I read your remark about the knife elsewhere.
That folding survival type knife that was used to slice open Kocis' neck, and nearly taking the victim's head off, is designed to do the job in one pass.
In hand-to-hand combat, the preferred technique is to come up on the enemy from behind, place one hand over the victim's mouth to prevent his crying out, and draw the knife from juglar to juglar. Not only does the victim drop limp from the loss of blood pressure within 5 to 10 seconds, but the trachea is sliced open by the knife, making any utterance of sound impossible. The victim will bleed out in an approximate 3 minutes due to the pumping action of the heart.
Harlow would have learned this basic combat training in boot camp. It is standard instruction in the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and Air Force as well as the respective reserves and National Guard.
i have seen no proof or evidence of any backdoor deal. the first mention of this on the blogs came from dewayne.
lee could have mentioned an apartment for sean before he decided to live with his cobrakiller.
as for harlow, anything he says can not be assumed as fact.
lastly, i hardly see bryan saying those things to a model he just met - or talking about such things on the phone in ear shot of harlow.
it is sad you report this as fact jim. it is not, it is rumor.
we know how most rumors have turned out in this saga.
"A blogger named "Brett" made reference to this deal 3 days after Kocis' murder at Jason Curious' blog."
so you keep saying... without proof.
always a problem for you that will be.
Stuff it BB.
I captured the remark still up at Jason Curious'. Cadinot4ever was posting as Anonymous on the same blog and that dear British barrister was one of Kocis' last known callers on the evening of his murder. What made me get out of my chair was the unsolicited comment that Cad tried to get Jason to delete all the Anonymous comments on that post and the "Brett" remark which main Jason thread, contained the first reference quoting Caleb Carter regarding Grant Roy's alleged "cleaner" remark. "Brett's" remark regarding the fact of the Bergeron-Kocis backdoor deal is right there in the comments and not solicited by Jason. To his credit Jason would not delete that Brett remark.
Ah so now the CCT's and the BBT's report imaginary details regarding what Harlow Cuadra overheard while being interviewed, liquored up and fellated by your "best friend," Bryan Kocis (See ref. to PH Day 1 Testimony of Robert Wagner). In your haste to be sure to nail Sean and Grant for the crime, you gave out a detail in a public forum that matches up with the BBT's. Get over it Bio Boy.
All you have done is deny. You have proof to the contrary produce it. If nothing but your routine bash and dash, your wishful thinking is not proof.
"Harlow would have learned this basic combat training in boot camp. It is standard instruction in the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and Air Force as well as the respective reserves and National Guard."
Rob, the training syllabi for Navy basic training, Hospital Corps A School, and Fleet Medical Service Technician C School (NEC HM-8404) are public knowledge, and none of them include the technique you describe. The technique is widely circulated in sources such as bullshit titles from Paladin Press.
Geoff the Marine I talked to in February 2007 described and demonstrated the technique after I described the coroners description of the neck wound(got some strange looks at Daves coffee shop as well! ;)
I thought Harlow was at Camp Pendleton for a short time and assumed they considered attaching him to a marine unit.
You are correct any wannabe Rambo can learn about the technique online.
Actually doing the deed which requires you get up close and personal with your victim is another matter.
I find it interesting on reflection with the ineptitude and seeming meth influenced thinking going into this murder that Harlow did his part with complete precision.
He did not Botch it!
Makes me think he had practice...
Sorry Geoff. Before Cuadra would have been sent to the specialty, Medical Corps school, he would have gone to Boot Camp first like any Seaman Recruit and so trained as any serviceman or woman in hand to hand combat techniques.
Geoff--
My source for my remark regarding Cuadra's boot camp training is
Gilmore, Gerry J. "Marines, Army Lead in Close-Quarters Combat" (Jan. 2002) American Forces Press Service, non-paginated on line article.
"The Navy and Air Force also provide hand-to-hand and martial arts training" during recruit training.
Do note that I was careful to state boot camp in my original remark which you quoted. I was attempting to refer to seaman recruits. Enlighten us all if Navy boot camp differs in the hand-to-hand and martial arts training the seaman recruits receive as opposed to Army, Marine, Coast Guard, and Air Force recruits.
as usual rob, you fail to provide backup yourself.
say what you want about me :)
bb don't care.
we all got your number.
it kills you and your puppet masters that RW is NOT involved.
there is a reason for that.
RW moved on from fucking for a living.
fucking for a living is all lockhart knows. aided by his cobrakiller.
yep real nice upstanding people are those two NOT.
whats the matter rob? pissed off nobody believes a word you say?
pissed off every claim you made about RW was a lie?
pissed off at being banned from ranting lies on other blogs?
too bad. you did it to yourself.
you were warned - nicely - by many.
your stuck in your fat file of BS.
funny as hell is that.
made a huge fool out of yourself. cant be undone either :)
each attack you make to me will be answered.
problem is you do not know who me is LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Rob, I spent ten years as an officer in the Navy and closely observed the training and performance of hundreds of enlisted men. I can assure you that none of them learned hand to hand combat techniques in the 8 week basic training course or anywhere else. The military focuses scarce training time on topics relevant to the servicemember's duties. I can see the Army teaching soldiers how to take out an enemy sentry with a knife post basic in AIT, but a soldier assigned to drive trucks or repair electronics wouldn't get that. The Marine Corps has an expanded boot camp of 13 weeks where all members get advanced infantry training. It's hard to imagine the Air Force wasting time on this in basic, same with the Coast Guard.
Robert--
Now if I am the favorite project of Bryan Kocis' chief flunky, I am impressed. I am hitting a nerve.
rob the only thing you know what to hit is your fat file of bullshit, you know, the one that says wagner was upstairs watching the murder on cctv as it happened.
dewayne now backtracks his cctv claims and says a webcam.
i STRONGLY suggest you, dewayne and the cobrakiller engage in a 3-way call (u know all about those right?) to get your um 'stories' straight. so far none of them jive.
as usual you ignore the points i raised. understandable i guess when you have no backup, just more lies from your fat file.
clueless to the end. shows you know nothing.
BTW, i'd rather be mistaken for RW than sean lockhart the proven hooker who still fucks for a living.
"Rob said...
Sorry Geoff. Before Cuadra would have been sent to the specialty, Medical Corps school, he would have gone to Boot Camp first like any Seaman Recruit and so trained as any serviceman or woman in hand to hand combat techniques."
this claim like your others is a lie presented as truth.
you'll never learn :)
Geoff--
Is Gilmore wrong then?
I do know that the Seamen Recruits receive training on firing the 9mm and Mossberg shotgun. Training in those anti-personnel weapons is close quarters. Gilmore suggests there is some hand-to-hand training for the recruits.
Geoff and I are not even in contending like fiends on this fact. I relied on what was stated in an article by a military reporter on a point of military training written within the last 6 years.
Geoff has other information. That is the difference between Geoff and you. Geoff furthers understanding. You seek only to muddy waters.
If you suggest that Dewayne and I talk, you would be very correct. I also communicate with Albert from time to time.
Oh the webcam security system existed, otherwise, you wouldn't be bent out of shape.
Why would Cadinot4ever try to pressure Jason into deleting all Anonymous comments and Brett's remark in that post of his from within 3 days of the murder?
I know exactly who I am addressing here.
This is the last paragraph of the March, 2001 Gilmore article:
The Navy and Air Force also provide hand-to-hand and martial arts training, but normally only for members of special operations and law enforcement units. Air Force and Navy recruits don't receive bayonet or hand-to-hand combat training, according to service officials.
Yes it is and if I did not want you to see what I had read, I would not have quoted it.
So Gilmore does say SOME hand to hand and martial arts training. With more specialized training to Master-at-Arms types. So what kind of hand-to-hand training do the recruits get then?
None whatsoever.
"Air Force and Navy recruits don't receive bayonet or hand-to-hand combat training, according to service officials."
Navy SEALS get all kinds of hand-to-hand combat training, but only after BUDS, and only a miniscule number of Navy members are SEALS. Likewise for Air Force Pararescue personnel. The Navy Master-at-Arms rating is lateral entry only starting at paygrade E-5. Maybe Air Force AP's get such training because they have to be ready to fight as provisional infantry.
Harlow categorically did not receive any hand-to-hand combat training in the Navy, not in boot camp, not in Hospital Corps A School, not in FMS C School if he went, which I doubt.
"Oh the webcam security system existed"
prove it.
"Why would Cadinot4ever try to pressure Jason into deleting all Anonymous comments and Brett's remark in that post of his from within 3 days of the murder?"
prove it.
"I know exactly who I am addressing here."
prove it.
Post a Comment