"3:51 PM: The Times Leader reports that homicide suspect Harlow Cuadra put the murder of Bryan Kocis on his former lover - Joseph Kerekes.
Going against his lawyer's advice not to testify,...
[An aside; I like how D'Andrea is trying to salvage his career and distance himself from this fiasco, LOL!]
"...Cuadra told the Luzerne County jury that he was inside Kocis' home in Dallas Township on Jan. 24, 2007, when they heard a loud, rapid knock on the door.
"Bryan gets up and goes up to the door; the minute he turns that knob, Joseph comes in," a sobbing Cuadra told the jury. "They fight a little at the door, I'm yelling, 'Joseph, what are you doing.'
"Joseph looks at me, and knocks Bryan in the face. Bryan was wearing one of those workout suits, all black, no socks, and Joseph grabs Bryan and throws him in the couch and starts punching he hell out of him.," Cuadra said.
Cuadra said he jumped on Kerekes' back in an attempt to stop the assault.
"Joseph reaches in his pocket and pulls out a knife and slashed Bryan's throat. I yelled, "Joe, what are you doing, he said to get the (expletive) out."
Cuadra said he was scared for his life and the life of Kerekes. They fled to South Beach, Fla., where they stayed in a motel for more than a month. They returned to their Virginia Beach, Va., home the day before Easter in 2007.
Cuadra said he understood that he was a "person of interest" in the case and wanted to talk to Pennyslvania investigators.
"Joseph wouldn't let me," Cuadra said. "I can't even go to the store to buy toilet paper without him.""
Update: According to the Citizen's Voice, Joe's evil dominence telepathically dictated Harlow's actions, even when safely in police custody:"Cuadra said he wanted to tell police his story, but Kerekes was very controlling.Yeah, but Harlow...your little room was in Lackawanna County. His little room was far far away, in Luzerne County.
“People can say ‘Harlow, do this’ or ‘Harlow do that,’ but they don’t know," Cuadra said. "They’re not Harlow. They’re not with Joseph. Individual valor doesn’t matter when you’re with Joseph in a little room.”"
Update 2: A helpful programming note...you can view WNEP live here...new story due at 6pm EDT!
Update 3: The Sword: Harlow Looking Screwed. Yeppers!
Update 4: Just One Hot Minute: Cobra Killers Testify Today. Hey, that's a catchy moniker!
Update 5: Per PC's Day 11 Overview, there was one hour of cross-examination by Melnick yesterday. Most surprising question and perhaps equally surprising answer:
"“Mr. Cuadra, let’s cut to the chase. Are you saying that Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart have anything to do with this murder?” Melnick asked.Also, Melnick was able to produce credit cards owned by Joe, which showed he didn't exclusively rely on Harlow's credit, as Harlow alledged.
“No,” Cuadra responded."
As to why Harlow never went to the police, he was "scared" of Joe, and actually described their relationship as "Stockholm Syndrome." Which considering how famously unsuccessful this defense was for Patty Hearst, may have been inadvisable.
Anyways, they are going to be picking up with cross-examination this morning, and as notable nuggets appear, I'll Update them here. A couple inferences as to what will happen: 1) Unless he was sedated, I doubt Harlow slept last night, so expect to see a groggy defendant; and 2) Melnick has had 12+ hours to go over Harlow's fanciful tales of yesterday, and will be 100% fresh and chipper.
In other words, let the slaughter begin...
Update 6: Per Sassy's advice in the comments here, I went combing through the CCTs and BBTs, to see what clues I could find as to who dominated who in the Harlow/Joe relationship. These were the most telling items I found:
"HARLOW CUADRA: I'll tell you what, when we're nude on that beach you can ask me whatever the hell you want.Here we have Harlow making a critical (ha ha, how's that for understatement!) decision in this saga, all on his own. Joe meekly aquieses, with the one-word question to Harlow: "Really?" And then right after that we have:
GRANT ROY: Okay.
JOSEPH KEREKES: Really?
HARLOW CUADRA: Yea."
"GRANT ROY: So y'all going to Sea World tomorrow?Now, here's the exact opposite; Joe makes a decision, and then Harlow completely overrides it.
JOSEPH KEREKES: Honestly Grant, if you can't give us a positive word tonight, we're gonna head back tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon.
HARLOW CUADRA: Well we'll give you 'til tomorrow."
I think we now know who was the "controlling" partner in this relationship.
I am certain with time I could find more such examples in the transcripts, showing Harlow to be the dominant partner, but these I could locate quickly enough because I recall musing about the first one specifically before, months ago.
Update 7: The defense rests. No testimony from the chaplain, the other prisoner, or a certain other personage. :-) Closing arguments next, after some legal wrangling. No details yet what specific holes Melnick punched in Harlow's story this morning, but should get a clearer picture once additional news stories and court watcher reports come rolling in.
Update 8: Melnick seemed to rely pretty heavily on what Harlow said on the CCTs and BBTs to impeach him on the stand. This was Harlow's response:
""I regret making those statements, but it’s not true," Cuadra said, beginning to cry. "I was under a lot of stress. He played with me. It’s not true. It’s not true."See Update 6 above; I don't see a whole lot of stress there as he calls the shots and overrides Joe's decisions.
Update 9: Closing arguments underway...
Update 10: More cross-examination highlights, via PC's Day 12 Overview...
- This was Harlow's big pre-rehearsed line; it seems to have made an impact as all news sources are quoting it:
"Harlow Cuadra shook his head and his voice reached a near frantic tone as he responded to lead prosecutor Michael Melnick’s question....and the Times Leader adds: "Cuadra repeated the statement two more times on Wednesday, telling the jury Kerekes, 35, killed Kocis."
“He pleaded guilty to murder,” Cuadra said. “I did not. For two years, I have held on to my innocence.”"
- "Joseph Kerekes stabbed Bryan Kocis in a jealous rage, Cuadra said, sticking to his story during two hours of questioning Wednesday." This after jealous Joe sat behind computer screens and engineered the hookup.
- "He was confrontational and cried several times during cross-examination by Melnick."
- "Cuadra testified when he arrived at Kocis’ home, Kocis kept calling him “Danny.”" Is Harlow actually saying he was unaware until he got there he was supposed to be "Danny?" What about his phone calls to Bryan as "Danny?"
- "“Joseph had a lot of chances to get away with this, but he pleaded guilty to murder,” Cuadra testified." Sounds like Harlow is bitter that Joe took the plea.
- Here's a fun fact: "Cuadra wore the same blue jacket with gold colored buttons during his testimony on Tuesday that he wore at the dinner with Lockhart and Roy, he said." But sadly, not the bow tie, it would appear.
Update 11: Also from PC's Day 12 Overview, more highlights from the closing arguments...
- These two statements sum up the different closing arguments:
"“The horror that was inflicted on Bryan Kocis by his killer was terrible,” attorney Joseph D’Andrea said during his closing argument. “But a mystery remains, who is Bryan Kocis’ killer? … Did that young man who I represent do it? Or, did he die by the hand of a violent man named Joseph Kerekes?”"and
"“There is one thing I will agree with Harlow Raymond Cuadra about,” Melnick said. “Joseph Kerekes is a murderer. I agree with that. But … this wasn’t a solo performance by Joseph Kerekes.”The defense wants the jury to think the murder was one or the other. The prosecution wants the jury to realize it can be both.
Melnick continued, pointing at Cuadra, “He aided and abetted that man.”"
- The problem with Boybatter:
"Cuadra alone slashed Kocis’ throat, Melnick told jurors, because he wanted to increase attention to his pornography Web site.- "Melnick’s closing argument reviewed prosecution evidence, but spent more time quoting Cuadra’s own testimony, saying it was filled with incongruities." I'll say.
“(It) is a very mediocre Web site,” Melnick said. “But you heard him. What did the defendant call himself? ‘I’m a gay porn star.’ He was a wannabe. He wanted to be a big deal.”"
- "“Was the defendant telling the truth?” Melnick asked. “He has the most at stake. He has a significant interest to lie and fabricate, and you have to take that into account. Does it ring true or is it complete, unadulterated fiction?”"
- "“He wrote, and these are his words, he needs lawyers that can tell a good story,” Melnick said. “Innocent people don’t need alibis. They’re innocent.”"
- The Girlie-Man-Can't-Throw-A-Football Defense:
"Cuadra’s attorneys said Kerekes is the more domineering and physically imposing of the two men. D’Andrea referenced a video showing Cuadra throwing a football.- "“At best, folks, my client was a witness to a crime,” D’Andrea said...He waited two years to talk to you folks.”" You know, an off-topic yet irresistable musing springs to mind while reading this. Consider:
“I hate to be so condescending, but it was almost feminine,” D’Andrea said. “Harlow is not a jock. Harlow is not the muscleman who has the physical ability to kill.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t care how Harlow throws a football,” Melnick retorted during his closing argument. “He’s a gym rat … The kid is ripped.”"
1) One party learns of a crime. They contact the police within hours. Result? For two years they are accused of having "blood on their hands."- The Condom Defense:
2) Another party supposedly only witnesses a crime, NEVER tells police, and waits two years to reveal it. Result? "And now you know the truth," people say.
"Prosecutors presented evidence of lighter fluid, condoms and other items purchased at Wal-Mart. Cuadra wanted condoms because he thought he really was going to model for Kocis and have sex with him, and he didn’t know about Kerekes’ plans.Depends on whether you victim plans on sex before or after you get a chance to kill him, I suppose. And I guess the lighter fluid was intended as lube.
“You’re not worried about safe sex if you’re going to kill someone,” D’Andrea said."
- And lastly, a forensic problem with Harlow's testimony:
"While sitting on a couch talking, Cuadra testified, Kerekes stormed inside and fought with Kocis before slashing his throat twice. Pascucci and Ross testified Kocis’ injury to his neck was by a knife in a single swipe."
78 comments:
Oooh! Oooh! Question!
Why wasn't this..."story"...told to the police on May 15, 2007?
Jim - Have no fear cross examination is forthcoming and that will settle all the bullshit!
The closing statement will be simple and will go like this, "Ever heard of Patty Hearst, Eli Smart, John, Paul, Peter and Ringo ... this poor little boy can't even get the facts straight because of all the duress inflicted on him since childhood by all the older and more mature GAY men"
Don't be surprized when you see UNO-WHO's letter claiming Harlow has went straight.
YOU BE THE 13th vote and see what you come up with ?
I say he will fry according to my balance sheet.
Right about now Harlow has asked his attorney to see if the jail nurse can see him before he dresses out. Suicide Watch Tonight Gentlemen ! Watch the opening of the session tommorrow - and expect a postponement !
Well it looks like Harlow has had his Perry Mason moment and he has fingered the killer
Joe.
And the Jury is thinking.
OMFG God what was this boy smoking and where can I get some!
Damn Quicky you should have been there I would love to have been watching the jury during this spectacle,
Alright Horshack (Welcome Back Kotter for those who need a memory jog :) We can only guess at this point why he didn't say anything, but now I enourage all of you to look back over all the information that is out there one more time....put aside all that you think you know and do a little review. I bet you find a few things you missed before :)
"'Bryan gets up and goes up to the door; the minute he turns that knob, Joseph comes in,' a sobbing Cuadra told the jury. 'They fight a little at the door,
'Joseph looks at me, and knocks Bryan in the face. Bryan was wearing one of those workout suits, all black, no socks, and Joseph grabs Bryan and throws him in the couch and starts' fucking the shit out of him, and he's banging and banging, and i'm yelling and screaming,
Take your socks off, it's killing the scene.
After we finished talking to Kocis (wink, wink) we did a few lines, roasted some hot dogs and drank champagne on the drive back. We were so excited over our new venture with Breck Dolley we did some more lines, and first thing out of the box the next day, I called Breck with the good news, and then I started calling peeps in the business, trying to get a new project going.
Don't let anyone fool you, I never really loved Joe, I just pretended.
And to think Harlow has had a year and a half sitting alone in jail in PA to come up with this story. If a 160 lb. man who can bench 225 for reps iand toss a 130 lb. porn actor on his shoulder and run on the beach s on Joe's back, and Joe is facing Bryan, how did Joe manage to chop Bryan's head off with a folding knife? From whom was he hiding in the back seat of the Xterra, Joe, headless Bryan, God? Better for him to have followed his hapless lawyer's advice, keep his mouth shut, and keep the jury guessing than to ad lib that whopper on the stand and make their minds up.
Can you give us a clue as to where to look, Sassy? Because as you know, there IS a lot of evidence out there to review.
It took the prosecution 10 days to get through it all, for example.
Here's another question: Why the fake name (Danny Moilin)?
Harlow kept this fake name fiction up with Bryan, not only by email, but by phone.
Or is the story Joe did all his phone conversations as well?
Anyhow...Harlow would know he'd HAVE to give Kocis his real name and birth certificate to do porn with Cobra. 2257 laws are something Harlow would have been most aware of.
And Harlow would know Bryan would be a PARTICULAR stickler for this, given what happened with Brent.
So, Harlow using a fake name to set up this "interview," that a fatal flaw right there.
Some visual aides to explain what happened today...
http://purplerantsandviews.blogspot.com/2009/03/harlows-thows-perry-mason-clusterfuck.html
Sassy,
Why don't you tell us what we are missing??
I believe we are never going to know which of them did what- exactly.
Does not really matter IMO-
V.J.,
Nope. And nope!
Four little words, blurted out unprompted by Harlow after being formally charged with murder, in a police station, protected, free at last from the grasp of his controlling, homicidal lover/captor:
"Joe didn't do it.'
Sassy this is ridiculous. Harlow was well over 19 when Kocis was murdered despite the ad puffing a perpetual 19. The dear boy had his own cell phone with him and Harlow knew how to use that device. Harlow could have called 911 or, even if bloggers buy the variation of Harlow going postal and being dominated by his fella sitting next to him in the car on the road back to Virginia, there was his arrival "back home" and well prior to the raid. Why not call the local police?
These jurors are not stupid people by a long sight. Harlow just talked himself into a life sentence.
I always found it curious that he chose the Danny Moilin; his name and the Moilin name, both 2 syllables each, and the last name that of a latin descendant.
It's of no import; however, he sure went on and on in his interview over why he kept his name, wanted to be one person, didn't want to have change back and forth.
Karma is weird.
re the trial, you would think he would admit something, but the testimony today was premised upon Joe's backing up Harlow. Empty story now.
re Stockholm Syndrome, Patty Hearst was a fluke, big name, everyone pulling for her; the others, i don't know, but it's never been credible that it keeps going on and on, that u don't take the opportunity to escape at some point.
Re Stockholm Syndrome:
Harlow wasn't abducted, he fell in love. The "brutality," if that's what it was, came later. That's battered-spouse syndrome.
Stockholm Syndrome BEGINS with a forced abduction and brutality, and morphs in the hostage's mind into something like "love." They are mirror images. But they are NOT the same.
Nota Bene:
"the variation of Harlow going postal . . . ."
Harlow should read Joe going postal.
Sassy says, "put aside all that you think you know and do a little review. I bet you find a few things you missed . . . ."
This is not going to sell. I will state the obvious--it sounds like Elm's statements on the subject.
What a fucking child, really. Harlow has had a couple of years to contemplate his crime. If his purpose were to let the jury form reasonable doubt in Elmesquian fashion (The evidence that matters is inconclusive), then he should have kept quiet. If he wanted to plead for the jury's sympathy, he should have told the unvarnished truth from beginning to end and let the jury conclude that Joe and Bryan were both bad guys.
Zach - I would not say that I was expecting he'd admit anything today and I certainly would not say that the testimony today was premised upon Joe Backin up Harlow. There was nothing with which he could have backed him up without making his own situation worse. There was enough evidence showing Harlow was aware of things that were happening and would always be trated as an accompilce.
In fact look at it this way - how stupid and DEPENDANT on someone do you have to be to actually BELIEVE he'll help you out in such a situation? I would not be surprised if that was the plan XXX or wahtever letter are we at - let's call joe in knowing he's going to refuse and then put out the distressed missus act (note the fake/ forces tears)
By the way Jim - sorry for lurking in the background until now, but I've had one week to catch up with everything you published here and was too busy reading:) You've done an excellent job.
loghorea said...
look at it this way - how stupid and DEPENDANT on someone do you have to be to actually BELIEVE he'll help you out in such a situation? I would not be surprised if that was the plan XXX or wahtever letter are we at
----
No, Joe could have taken the rap, said Harlow would never hurt a fly, it was me, and I cannot sit in my cell knowing Harlow is going down for something I did completely.
That is what was needed. Anything other than that could never be what the defense was praying for. Let's not kid ourselves and read too much into this disastrous day.
As I rolled before there are a number of ramifications that Joe can get if he is forced to testify. You can stack some contempt charges on his head by giving him monetary fines, of which the commonwealth can deduct from the inmate's trust fund account. That being any money no matter how little it may be that Joe may earn in from inmate wages.
This is called the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, whereby fines, court costs, restitution can be collected from the inmate's trust fund account. An inmate's failure to participate in such a program can remove an inmate's privileges to make use of the commissary, telephone use, housing and other program perks. Some of these things Joe will want as a life-long citizen in a penal facility.
We need to see that plea agreement and see the terms of his deal. Again, I think it would have been stupid for any Prosecutor to enter into any deal without the term of truthful testimony and waiving any rights to appeal.
Don't be surprized in the commonweath's cross that we don't see Joe on the stand again.
quickysrt - let's not:)
sorry for rambling off now but...:
Honestly, after an attempt to contract schizophrenia by reading and judging everything that was written in the concerned blogs in one sitting with a semi professional eye of someone who actually teaches law in Europe(took me a week - including all the comments and discussions) I have to say that as surprised as I was by todays' developments something like that was bound to happen. Sean titled his post 'defleated' and while knowing the meaning of the word I think I am only begining to grasp the magnitude of what it might encompass... There is going to be no clean cut exit or a wrap up - for anyone concerned. There were too many things left unsaid by those who actually had something to say, thus giving some well known internet parasites wonderfull grounds to fester. Then there were too many things said by those who had nothing to say. One of the things that struck me most while I was going through the forums and publications was the attitude of some people - and I don't know if it is a US vs. European attitude or what - we sometimes call it a camel defense - somebody comes a calls me a camel and then challenges me to prove that I am not a camel:) or in honour of this blog, let's say it's a chinchilla:)
"In Elmesquian fashion"
I LOVE that!!!!! :))
loghorea said...
". . .after an attempt to contract schizophrenia by reading and judging everything that was written in the concerned blogs in one sitting. . ."
I salute your fortitude and dedication, loghorea, but that is giving me a headache just thinking about it!
>"I've been thinking a lot about my parents and it would destroy them if I said something that I didn't do," Kerekes said.
Really, Joe? That one last lie on the stand after you've plead guilty to Murder 2, forced them to sell their home and had their and your name plastered all over the news, that is going to destroy them?
Hillllllllllllarious.
It's days like this, and really only days like this, that I miss putting badguys away.
>I bet you find a few things you missed before :)
No, no. I'm fairly certain I got that H&J were two of the dumbest criminals I've ever come across.
The last ten days have confirmed that these are two sick, sick puppies.
loghorea said...
Sean titled his post 'defleated' and while knowing the meaning of the word I think I am only begining to grasp the magnitude of what it might encompass... There is going to be no clean cut exit or a wrap up - for anyone concerned----
Exactly, Sean arrived at the airport in Wilkes Barre, checked in, sat down to prepare for his long connecting flight home, and realized that he did not feel that new beginning, fresh start, new birth or whatever, but felt the part of his life that was ruined after that fire will not be recouped. It was deflated (correct quote) from him, never to be returned.
----
loghorea said...
There were too many things left unsaid by those who actually had something to say, thus giving some well known internet parasites wonderfull grounds to fester. Then there were too many things said by those who had nothing to say. One of the things that struck me most while I was going through the forums and publications was the attitude of some people - and I don't know if it is a US vs. European attitude or what -
----
I just wrote a reply with some opinions, but my opinions have been stated on the subject of internet types in severe desire to attach their name to someone else's infamy, thinking incorrectly that this is a type of fame that they can garner. Or thinking that this is a type of attention that is better than no attention or notice at all. It comes with the territory and is not a US or EU based syndrome.
Joe said...
"I've been thinking a lot about my parents and it would destroy them if I said something that I didn't do,"
Joe MADE his mother clean used condoms of the Bordello Floor, turning her into a JIZZ maid!
Yeah Joe you really Honored and Respected your parents!
Exodus 20:12
Rob and quick had some good points to sum up this day.
Rob- "Harlow talked his way into a life sentence"
- I personally believe that.
Quicky- "Let's not kid ourselves and read too much into this disastrous day".
Burning question for me-
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT COW Renee up to??????
according to last elmysterio's comment on his blog:
"The plan all along was for Harlow to take the fall for this. Seems like it just might work. There was realy no way for the truth to come out because of all of the previous lies that were told."
and that leaves me truly speachless for tonight.
Isn't that strange, but with all the blog-hopping I did today I never paid Elm's a visit. I can only shudder to think what's going on over there. And now after reading loghorea's little quotation, I think it's best to leave it for tomorrow, after a good night's sleep. That was enough Elm-telligence for me right now.
There was just that one post.
It looks like Elm was privy to the bare bones of Plan C all along. And that Joe, while on the 3-way calls with him, was a fountain of creative scenarios similar to Plans B and C, designed to explain away their guilt, and be supportable despite a complete vacuum of evidence in their favor.
I am hopeful Elm will organize publish his private correspondences soon, and expose the whole nest of vipers who dragged him into this web of deceit in the first place. It's a gift of personal satisfaction that he owes to himself.
That, I predict, will not only be a public triumph for Elm, but a momentous and enlightening event for us all.
>Isn't that strange, but with all the blog-hopping I did today I never paid Elm's a visit.
Oh, Will. You just made me go over and read his blog. Damn you.
I'll say here what I said there, last year:
The Stupid. It burns.
Harlow and Joe took one life and victimized a host of others -- though not all of those others realize what a patsy they've been.
What do you think, Jody, could someone ever write a good screenplay about this whole saga? Or would it be too unbelievable?
I second Jim re Elm,
there's a lot there to ponder, the plan for harlow to take the fall, elm's warnings that the california trip was a set-up; any bonds of confidentiality surely are broken.
I for one would like to be able to understand this better than I do.
Question, am i correct in thinking that this is the first instance of commiting murder in order to obtain the rights to broadcast a specific individual on a video porn website? has this happened before?
is it fair to say that this case represents the intersection of complete abandonment associated with sex, heightened by drugs, with that of rank ambition to build a commercial website dedicated to sex? this is not specific enought for what i'm reaching, but it seems like we've crossed a new threshold in the internet age.
Thoughts? murder is not new, the reasons for this one are like all the others, money, sex, drugs, revenge, etc., but this one has nuances that are different, coupled with the technology.
>What do you think, Jody, could someone ever write a good screenplay about this whole saga? Or would it be too unbelievable?
Oh, sure. You could write a few good scripts out of this. It's not that unbelievable... just ridiculous.
I'm still trying to figure out what was going through the defense team's mind.
I was always told you call a witness for your side when you are certain you know what they're going to say and how they are going to say it. Did they really think Joe was going to testify for Harlow? Take the rap? Not play everyone for a fool?
When... D'Andrea (sp) was trying to soften as much of the prosecutions' evidence as possible, I got that. Made sense and might have worked to knock things from 1st to 2nd.
Now though? After Dildo Two had another three minutes of fame on the witness stand and Dildo One did the sterotypical "I had a bad life" defense? I can't see him getting a good outcome at all.
If I had to write Cuadra's tale, I think I'd call the film The Wonderfully Wacky World of Harlow Cuadra (Boy Genius) totally inspired in tone and content by the classic The Positively True Adventures of the Alleged Texas Cheerleader-Murdering Mom.
It would be a Logo Special, playing just after a re-run of Tori Spelling's Mother May I Sleep With Danger and before a late night showing of The Dead Zone.
Draw what inferences from that you will.
Post that one on the other blog, Will. :-)
Sorry Jim, I should have been a little more explicit. Knowing what was stated on the stand by Harlow yesterday, review the BBT statements keeping his statements in mind. While the words remain the same, the concept of what was said by Harlow and why are a little different. Elm knows as well as many of us do what type of personality Joe Kerekes is. I can't say this enough, if you spoke to him for even a few minutes you would totally understand why Harlow is in the situation he is in.
A friend suggested just minutes ago to nominate Harlow for the Darwin Awards.
In other words, let the slaughter begin...
Oh yes ... there will be blood
Sassy, see Update 6. :-)
"Then, Cuadra said he heard “loud, rapid knocks” on the door.
"Bryan gets up and goes up to the door; the minute he turns that knob, Joseph comes in," a sobbing Cuadra told the jury. "They fight a little at the door, I’m yelling, ’Joseph, what are you doing."
This seems to completely counterdict all the prior testimony about Brian being such a private person and that he never opens the door for anyone unexpectedly. Even his parents needed to provide notice ahead of time if they were going to visit if IIRC.
Excellent point William.
Sassy do read and share this memorable Harlow Cuadra quote with Elm: "'Mr. Cuadra, let’s cut to the chase. Are you saying that Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart have anything to do with this murder?' Melnick asked. 'No,' Cuadra responded.'"
That Elmism circles the drain.
Regarding latest update-
Yes, it sure looks like Joe was the dominant one in the relationship-
Harlow was always taking orders.
Funny Sassy, took you a year and a half to come out with yeaterdays little pearl?
It is over.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Day_12_of_Cuadra_trial_Testimony_ends_.html
Just looking at the news clip at pc's
Joe does LOOK the part now-
[of the grunt husband]-
looks like he put on 15-20 pounds.
Sassy said...
Knowing what was stated on the stand by Harlow yesterday, review the BBT statements keeping his statements in mind. While the words remain the same, the concept of what was said by Harlow and why are a little different.
----
Sassy, there is two different things coming out of Harlow between the tapes and his dear pleading. He is NO^T saying the same thing.
The BBTs reveal a Harlow feeling "good to see the F'r go down", and admitting he knows it is "really really f'd up".
Perhaps you would need to hear the real tapes like I did to better understand what context those statements were made. if you did, then you still don't seem to comprehend exactly what is on the tapes.
You come off foolish to even mention Elm is a serious discussion of this case.
Well I take back everything I have said to GorgeousBoys about the Stockholm Syndrome being the wrong label for Harlow's defense -- it is indeed being used by Harlow himself. (Correctly or not. . .) GorgeousBoys, I think someone from the defense my be reading your comments here or on JOHM, what do you think?
It's in the jury's hands now!
>Grant
P.S. Told ya the wicked witch wouldn't take the stand! ;)
"Grant said...
It's in the jury's hands now!
>Grant
P.S. Told ya the wicked witch wouldn't take the stand! ;)"
It's funny, though, how she flew back, expecting possibly to testify, and then not. I guess even Harlow's lawyers had begun to doubt her credibility.
"Cuadra frequently confronted Assistant District Attorney Michael Melnick, informing Melnick that out of the 86 witnesses called to testify, only Melnick called him a 'murderer.'"
There's our little Damien, getting confrontational with Melnick. Something he was too afraid to do with Kerekes, according to his testimony. I hope Melnick was able to elicit many moments like that with poor little meek Harlow on the stand, that would be the most productive thing to come out of cross -- otherwise, it's insulting to the jury to pick apart every little absurdity of his story. They're smart enough (hopefully) to do that themselves.
"It's in the jury's hands now!
>Grant"
Then either they skipped the closing arguments or there really wasn't that much to recap after yesterdays disaster and they went as quick as Brian did.
Closing arguments may take place late today or early Thursday.
--Times Leader
Yeah, and in a case like this, spanning 12 days, it'll be extra important, especially for the prosecution.
This is their one and only chance to summarize, organize and prioritize a massive amount of evidence for the poor jury, which has been sitting patiently through all this for two weeks.
Defense goes first, and then, since they have the burden of proof, the prosecution.
Re update 8:
"I regret making those statements, but it’s not true," Cuadra said, beginning to cry. "I was under a lot of stress. He played with me. It’s not true. It’s not true."
LOL -- I'll say he regrets making those statements! Especially when he found out they were being recorded! That's the first believable thing he's said on the stand.
Oops, sorry... Yes, closing arguments after the lunch break!
>Grant
"Defense goes first, and then, since they have the burden of proof, the prosecution."
Interesting.
I would have thought just the opposite order.
It is usually the prosecution first, and usually last with a rebuttal. Is PA an exception to the norm?
You could be right Will, P,D,P. I am pretty sure P goes last tho.
>"'Mr. Cuadra, let’s cut to the chase. Are you saying that Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart have anything to do with this murder?' Melnick asked. 'No,' Cuadra responded.'"
And somewhere, a mirror shatters, smoke escapes and the bullshit oozes far, far away.
>"I regret making those statements, but it’s not true," Cuadra said, beginning to cry. "I was under a lot of stress. He played with me. It’s not true. It’s not true."
[Jody shakes head]
He fucked up my friends lives -- not to mention destroyed a family -- all because he was under a lot of stress.
These are just dumb, sad, sick people.
I think you were right after all, Jim. According to the latest Times Leader update, it looks like the defense went first with their closing argument -- all of one hour, emphasizing the fact that Harlow wasn't strong enough to overcome and kill Kocis. Pretty damn pathetic. Roecker really should get a refund.
Roecker (and his pal Jason Ridge) were part of the problem, IMO. I think they conditioned the financial aid on Harlow trying to plead totally innocent, and implicating Sean and Grant in the murder somehow.
I bet D'Andrea was reasonably intelligent and opposed this. But as he was getting his funding from this source, his advice could only go so far.
will g said...
...Pretty damn pathetic. Roecker really should get a refund.
March 11, 2009 7:49 PM
To Roeker and Ridge: Misinformation, lies and deceit! May you reap what you sow!
jim said...
Roecker (and his pal Jason Ridge) were part of the problem, IMO. I think they conditioned the financial aid on Harlow trying to plead totally innocent, and implicating Sean and Grant in the murder somehow...
March 11, 2009 7:59 PM
I didn't observe or notice any reports that either of them (Roeker or Ridge) traveling to PA in support of their fellow whore!
>Grant
I see that the unmentionable one is claiming credit for Harlow's defense strategy. Poor Harlow.
"prof said...
I see that the unmentionable one is claiming credit for Harlow's defense strategy. Poor Harlow."
One of his more believable claims, I must say. :-)
After all that it comes down to the defense proffering that Harlow couldn't have done it because he wasn't strong enough.
I'm just letting that one sink in a minute before I laugh.
Bwhahahahhahahaha!
That felt good.
Are people just speculating that Roecker and Ridge demanded Harlow plead innocent in exchange for their funds or does someone actually have some information?
I'm rather curious about that.
It's just speculation.
But you have to admit, pretty reasonable speculation. Roecker's Harlow interview wouldn't have been worth a plugged nickle to Here! or any other outlet had Harlow taken a plea before the air date.
Blogger Jody said...
Are people just speculating that Roecker and Ridge demanded Harlow plead innocent in exchange for their funds or does someone actually have some information?
I'm rather curious about that.
March 11, 2009 10:24 PM
Blogger jim said...
It's just speculation.
But you have to admit, pretty reasonable speculation. Roecker's Harlow interview wouldn't have been worth a plugged nickle to Here! or any other outlet had Harlow taken a plea before the air date.
Dead on accurate Observation Jim & Jody!
All the players in this case from Day one who openly speculated that Sean or Grant were part of a conspiracy in the murder of Bryan Kocis had a vested interest in promoting that view.
Indeed for two years they have Huffed,Puffed and breathed Sean and Grant are Guilty.
Despite the absence of evidence or moves by the Authority's in that direction. The firestorm of character assassination reached a pinnacle in June 2008 which resulted in the DA's "Bad Acts" statement that Sean,Grant and Robert Wagner were not involved in the murder of Bryan Kocis.
So Why do it?
Reasons.
1.Personal animosity.
2.Financial gain (Book,film,TV deals)
3.Publicity for the person or website (making the accusations)
very simple really, and completely understandable.
The people willing to make such accusations are the MORAL Equivalent..
Of Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes.
Such people acted purely for financial gain and they did not care who they smeared or lied about.
As for the players who acted from pure personal animosity or hatred I'll cut you some slack, I returned tit for tat for the same reasons.
jim said...
One of his more believable claims, I must say. :-)
Only in that it is the defense that Harlow actually presented. But from the beginning Harlow has protested that he was innocent of the charges against him and wanted to present his case at trial.
>Roecker's Harlow interview wouldn't have been worth a plugged nickle...
Eh. More times than not Here (here!) acquires what other producers have already done and builds marketing around what they got.
I'm still not sure of the exact origin of the show, but I heard through friends that Roecker made it himself and then sold it to here. No one could tell me if it was a negative pickup or just the equivalent of spec.
I suppose I could call up still other friends who work at Here and directly ask them, but I don't care -that- much about the issue.
What I'm saying is that Roecker and the other porn star guy could honestly have believed that Harlow was innocent. Or didn't care and just wanted something even more lurid for his already lurid doc.
I try not to attribute to malice what can more adequately explained by stupidity. Though as with this case, when stupidity leads to malice, I find myself calling even that maxim into question.
I actually speculated more on this question a while back here.
Seems to me, had he (and his backers?) paid for it all up front, that would increase his sense of urgency that this thing would need to still be going to trial before he sold it, no?
And then after he sold it, but before air date, the network would then be the one with the vested interest in Harlow not taking a plea?
>And then after he sold it, but before air date, the network would then be the one with the vested interest in Harlow not taking a plea?
You're giving far too much foresight, planing and credit to Hollywood.
:-P
Seriously, I don't know. It would be nice if the whole story of the Roecker thing came to light. I'd love to know the whole story.
"While sitting on a couch talking, Cuadra testified, Kerekes stormed inside and fought with Kocis before slashing his throat twice. Pascucci and Ross testified Kocis’ injury to his neck was by a knife in a single swipe."
Wow, I totally missed that one in my little overview. How utterly bizarre. What would possibly be the motive or reason for Harlow to invent a double slashing when it's such a "cut-and-dry" (sorry) piece of forensic evidence? Why bother? That's a real stumper.
Yeah. When you're inventing stories to coicide with facts, you tend to make slip ups like that. Especially when there are so many facts in the air to juggle.
Perhaps it was to make the jury think that since he didn't do it himself he didn't have such a clear view and thus could have mistaken one slash for two? He was sitting in the courtroom during that testimony, he knows very well it was a single slash, so I'm sure it wasn't just a slip-up on his part. He didn't even have to say "once" or "twice," he intentionally got it wrong for some reason. Pretty bewildering.
Post a Comment