Completely Off Topic Post: Santa's Bailout

Merry Christmas everyone! :-)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Off To Plea We Go

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

In the meantime, lets banter!



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Italics are mine below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update 8: More WNEP video.

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

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

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

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

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