Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Victory Day 2013



Update 16: On to Chapter 6! The first paragraph reads as follows:

"To be clear, suspicion about who killed Bryan Kocis did not immediately settle on Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes. Speculation online and among porn insiders almost immediately centered instead on Sean Lockhart and Grant Roy because of their well-known and public feud with Kocis."

FWIW, this paragraph is accurate. However, the main point about it I want to make is this: To the best of my recollection (and please I correct me if I'm wrong), this paragraph is the exhaustive entirety of everything the book has to say about the vast network of blogs, bloggers, commenteers and lurkers which we know of today as the "Kocisphere."

At no point does the book even vaguely allude to the Kocisphere, except this one vaguely alluding paragraph.

Discuss.


Update 15: And here's the "revelation" absolutely no one is surprised to see, once it became known Joe was being interviewed for this book: "...to kill Bryan Kocis, a task we had prepared two weeks to perform since the idea's inception between Sean Lockhart and Harlow at that business meal at Le Cirque in Vegas at the Bellagio." Then etc etc etc for two more paragraphs after that.

So, who here is shocked at this attempt by imprisoned-for-life Joe to finger Sean (and at a later quote in the book, Grant) as full-fledged co-conspirators in the murder plot? Who of us here NEVER saw this comin'?




Update 14: As 'Joe and Harlow go to Pennsylvania': "...At 6:35 P.M., another call from the pre-paid Verizon wireless cell phone is recorded making it's last phone call, this one bouncing off a cell tower on County Club Road in Dallas, Pennsylvania--just 500 yards and within view of Kocis' home. Cuadra was apparently near Kocis' home but was too early for his appointment."

I've said this before on this blog, but I think it bears repeating: I believe Harlow entered the house right after this 6:35pm phone call (which was probably Harlow telling Kocis he was early and standing at the door). In other words, not after the last call by Macias at 7:50pm, as is commonly believed.

Reason being is what Harlow said on the BBTs. He clearly related to Sean and Grant a phone call he overheard between Kocis and Lee Bergeron (frustratingly obfuscated in this book as "business partner"). Those calls from Lee, as you can see, came in right on schedule at 7:23 and 7:34pm.

There was no way on earth Harlow could have known about those calls UNLESS he was sitting right there listening to Kocis talk on his end. At the time the BBT sting was underway, the Kocis phone call info was NOT yet public info, in news accounts or on blogs.

And not only did he know of the calls, he clearly knew the gist of what was being said. Harlow mentioned on the BBTs Kocis setting up Brent in his own apartment, as part of the new business relationship. Brent exclaimed that this was indeed discussed. Harlow replied with words to the effect: See I told you so, how else would I know that.

Now, I know what some of you are going to say now, that Macias testified that Bryan told him minutes after 7:50pm that he had to end the call as "Danny" aka Harlow was at the door.

My explanation for this seeming discrepancy is a simple one: Harlow had been in Bryan's house, patiently (or impatiently) waiting since about 6:36pm. Kocis had been harried by business call almost that entire time, which we can clearly see thanks to the timeline in this section. When Macias made that last call at 7:50pm, Bryan probably decided enough was enough. He was going to refuse to talk any more to his attorney (or anyone else), and as a polite way of immediately terminating the conversation, made up a little white lie of having to get up and get the door (which is more mannerly than saying "the twink sitting next to me right now is more important than talking to you, so, hang up and go away.").

So, it was a polite little fib from Kocis to Macias, quite understandable under the circumstances. And as you can see, it reconciles with what Harlow said on the BBTs; as Harlow himself said, there is no other way he could have known about that phone call unless he was sitting there as it happened.

I think this whole point is interesting, because if I'm right (and I don't how I couldn't be) then Harlow was with Bryan alone for up to an hour and twenty minutes before he killed him, and not the mere ten or so minutes as has been commonly thought. Was it the constant phone calls that kept Harlow from killing Bryan for so long? Seems likely, you don't want to kill someone on the phone, as that would likely give it away ("talk talk talk talk talk ARRRGHaaack...").

Or possibly, was Harlow also trying to build his courage up during this time period?

On the BBTs, Harlow's account of that last conversation between Bryan Kocis and Lee Bergeron, just before Bryan was murdered, was that they were using the settlement to screw Sean and Grant over (the so-called "back door deal"), and that disparaging things were said about Sean in that conversation. The point Harlow was trying to make being, that Bryan was a bad man, and therefore, Sean and Grant should stop feeling bad about what had been done.

And one get's the impression, by implication, that that overheard phone conversation Between Lee and Bryan most likely also played a role in fortifying Harlow's resolve as well.

Update 13: On to Chapter 5...

"Despite acknowledging the need for a substantial daily and weekly income just to keep their heads above water, Kerekes insists ..."We needed no ... help whatsoever" to meet their financial obligations."

:-O

What... the... ?????

OK, some background here. In the very early days of the Kocisphere, before Harlow and Joe were even arrested, and even for a while afterwards, the main argument for their innocence was that they were stinking rich. They lived in a mansion! They drove a fleet of super expensive cars! They wore Rolexes and chinchilla fur coats! They traveled the world! Etc. They were the Warren Buffet and and Bill Gates of the homo hooker world. And THEREFORE, had NO MOTIVE to commit such a crime. They MUST have been framed! This was cited as innumerable times as settled fact on Elm blog and elsewhere (Elm actually titled a blog post 'Who Framed Harlow and Joe?' or words to that effect), despite the only source for these claims of affluence being Harlow and Joe themselves.

And indeed, they did have a big house, cars, etc. that everyone could see...but were they telling the whole story? Nearly everyone in the Kocisphere back then accepted in blind faith that they were.

Then came the bombshell: PC published their credit reports on his blog.

O.M.G. WHAT a game changer. Turns out all that wealth was borrowed on credit cards, the house double-mortgaged upside-down to the hilt. A hypothetical homeless person with nothing but a ball of lint in his pocket had a higher net worth than Harlow and Joe, since a ball of lint has a value of $0 and Harlow and Joe were clearly in negative numbers.

At that point, FINALLY, public opinion began to shift. Especially when you looked at the reports closely; you could actually see the missed payments getting worse and worse, throughout the period when they were desperately negotiating with Brent and Grant, and combined with rejected requests for credit extensions, all the way up to the day of the murder. It was utterly damning.

The die hard Harlowites were, quite naturally, furious at PC. One of the Harlow relatives (his sister, IIRC?) threatened PC with a lawsuit over the publishing of the credit report.

Elm and others, initially shocked themselves, went into damage control mode. The new party line was "Oh they had some debts (who doesn't) but they were manageable! You, see, because they had lots of income coming in!"

To this I would reply using math. At one point I figured out what they would need to make minimum monthly payments on their debts, divided it by Harlow's hourly rate, and calculated the number of hours Harlow would have to spend per month with his legs in the air. I can't recall the exact figure, but I believe it did not give him enough time to get eight hours sleep at night.

But Elm and others were impervious to math. They went on with the "they were too rich to have a motive" theory until the very end, totally dismissing that pesky little problem with creditors that were about to repossess everything they owned and loved. Elm and I literally went back and forth over this, in numerous and lengthy blog posts, for YEARS.

So, fast forward to today. Joe is in prison for life. He has nothing to lose by finally telling the truth now, the same truth he told Grant on the Blacks Beach tapes: that they were in financial desperation during this period.

So, Stoner I guess writes Joe a letter (because according to the footnote on this para it comes from a "Kerekes letter to AES") and I suppose he quite naturally asks "so Joe, why'd you do it?" and Joe replies as above, that "financial obligations" had nothing to do with it.

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!

Holy crap, they have NOT given up on this now pointless point. You have GOT to be f'ing kidding me. I am frankly astounded. They are STILL refusing to admit finances were the motive.

Why? Why keep this lie going? I completely do not understand this. At this point I have to wonder whether Elm and Joe got together recently, and decided Joe should tell Stoner this...simply to piss me off. They knew I would read this when the book came out...and blow my stack. Yes, I realize this is a far-fetched theory, but I can currently come up with no other explanation!

And it worked too. I almost threw my book out the window (which would have been a big problem because it's a Kindle edition).

Sigh. Well, OK then Joe, if not for money problems, why DID you commit the murder?

And Joe says: "We simply saw something we wanted...so we took it."

Wow. I mean, wow. So, that's the motive, according to Joe, huh? That you and Harlow did it because you both are psychopaths.

Um, yeah. BIG improvement over having a financial motive Joe! Yeah that really makes you guys look good! Thanks for sharing.

Sigh.

Now you all see why I said earlier that interviewing Joe for this book was a fools errand. While I appreciate the efforts of Stoner and PC in reaching out to Joe, I have to say nothing he says now in this book, or later, can really be taken seriously, for anything. And this whole paragraph is a prime example of exactly why.


Update 12: "Eliminating competitors was also nothing new for Cuadra and Kerekes..."

I am so glad this prior throat slitting incident got covered in detail in this book. Kudos to PC and Stoner for tracking down investigator Childress and getting the 411 on this, as best we can know it.

I think one of the problems the people who thought Harlow was innocent had, back in the early days of the Kocisphere, was a sense that Harlow and Joe were not predisposed to commit such a violent crime as the Kocis murder. Brent and Grant had the very public and very ugly online fight, which made a crime of passion on their part relatively believable, but Harlow and Joe? What a cute couple! And look at that Harlow, he's sooooo adorable! Wouldn't hurt a fly!

Well, later information begins to trickle out, and we find out about bullet holes in the walls, Joe's other violent acts...and then Jon Ross.

Now, we don't know for sure who slit Ross' throat, but I think we can all make a pretty good assumption here and narrow it down to one of two people. Think about this: Ross is standing in the way of a business opportunity for Harlow and Joe. Harlow and Joe resort to violence to remove the obstacle, and cut his throat. Harlow and Joe not only get what they want, but manage to get away scot free.

Harlow and Joe learn what they believe is a lesson from this: Sometimes you can get what you want in life by a well planned throat-cutting act of violence.

This prior life lesson will be VERY much on their minds years later, when they face a similar business obstacle.


Update 11: LOL: "Joe had Harlow's last name tattooed on his buttock."

(A new innovation, I shall post Updates to the top from here on out)


Happy Victory Day 2013! Yes, it's that time of the year again, the anniversary of the guilty verdict against Harlow Cuadra. A day when hard-working prosecutors and twelve ordinary citizens of Pennsylvania brought about a victory of truth over misinformation.

And a day set aside not only for celebration and/or reflection, but also as a reunion; a day for all us keyboard warriors here at SOTC, be they bloggers, commenteers or even just lurkers, to pop back for a bit and say "hi!". And to reflect back on those heady days when we followed a mystery, and then an arrest, and then a legal case, with no small amount of passion and intensity.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what this year's "main topic" will be about (in fact, the only topic). PC's book, Cobra Killer: Gay Porn Murder and the Manhunt to Bring the Killers to Justice by Andrew E. Stoner and Peter A. Conway, is finally out! In fact, it's been out for quite a while now. So, this reunion will basically be an open thread on the book.

And I think how I'm going to do this is...I am going to read the book.

Or to be more specific, re-read it. Naturally, I devoured this eagerly awaited tome the instant I was able to, and as you might imagine, I had reactions to it. Reactions at various points in it like "huh, VERY interesting" or "hmmm..." or "this wasn't covered?" or "LOL!" Things like that.

And the thing is, it's been months since I've had these various first impressions, and in the course of time, those impressions have not surprisingly become jumbled and hazy. So, what I shall do is begin re-reading the book, from Page One. Then I shall live blog my second impressions, as I have them, here as updates to this post. Then comments and discussion can flow from those updates as they occur. I am very keen to know other's opinions on these matters (especially PC's, if he would care to make them!).

I expect this will take a while. So, this reunion post will stay active for a while (a month or so, maybe?).

So, welcome back all! And feel free to start commenting, on any book-related subject you like. Let Victory Day (or Month, or Months) begin!


Update: You know, a fun fact I just remembered...this is actually not the first time I've live blogged something. As some of you may recall, I live-blogged this event. If this new one is even half as successful and entertaining as that one was, I think we'll all have reason to be quite satisfied!


Update 2: Might as well lead off with this one. Chapter 1: "He [Kocis] thought he was nearing the end of a protracted and bitter fight that had brought him scorn and to the brink of arrest on federal child endangerment laws."

As many of you may recall, this is in the very beginning of the book, and was part of the "free sample" we all got to read before the book came out. And it raised eyebrows at the time because of the "brink of arrest" bit. No one had ever suggested before that Kocis was on the "brink of arrest" over the BC underage scandal.

The reason this was so eyebrow raising was because this whole subject was the subject of a great debate back in the day, versus the "underage denial" theorists. Without getting into excessive detail (I don't want to recount here the whole history of the underage denialist movement), but suffice to say they believed, for a variety of reasons, that Brent was really 18, and not 17 (and hence not underage) when he shot his first videos for Cobra. (Yes,looking back in hindsight it is amazing people actually thought this...but for those of you weren't there, trust me! This was a huge debate, and what the denialists lacked in numbers they made up for in persistance).

A highly debated point in this clash of world views was the claim by Brent and Grant that they went to the FBI about the underage work, and reported it...and that the FBI declined to pursue the matter. The underage denialists vigorously disputed this story. They claimed BC and GR were lying about this, and that they never would have gone to the FBI, because then Brent's age fraud (ie, really being a year older) would have been exposed. The denialists repeated over and over and over the claim that the FBI would have never let a 2257 violation go unprosecuted...therefore, BC and GR were lying. Therefore, Brent was of age the whole time. Therefore, it was OK for them to finally retrieve their copies of Every Poolboy's Dream from their secret hiding places behind the refrigerator, and put it back conveniently on the shelf next the TV.

Hmm. It does appear I promised waaaay above not to get into an extended dissertation on the underage denailist controversy. And look what I just did. Crap.

OK, to wind this up ... you can see how the revelation Kocis was on the "brink of arrest" raised eyebrows. It implies that the FBI DID take a real interest in this...and that we never know about it before. Which is interesting.

Unfortunately, as I read into the book I could find nothing to back this up (unless I missed it?). And that's the point it's taken me 5 paragraphs to get to. Was Kocis really on the brink of arrest?

In the final analysis, however, I have to say it really doesn't matter all that much. The underage denialists are actually no more. Their spiritual leader, the blogger Julian, himself admitted Brent was indeed 17 at the time after all (after contacting the San Diego Police Department directly, and got confirmation that Brent was arrested for underage drinking at his 18th birthday party). Which was, BTW, a RARE example of someone in the Kocisphere actually admitting a online view he once held was actually now contrary to the evidence and hence wrong, for which he deserves an infinite amount of commendation, IMO.

So, forget I even mentioned this! Reading on...


Update 3: I just finished Chapter One. A solid chapter overall; in particular, the lurid details of what the detectives saw when they entered the house very well written, IMO.

One oddity though:
"Detective Higgins confirmed through Bryan Kocis' father that he was involved in a tumultuous lawsuit with Sean Lockhart, Grant Roy, and their business partner in California but Kocis kin never implicated any of the men as possible suspects"
Who is this unnamed "business partner"? Police are looking at this guy early on as a possible suspect due to his lawsuit involvement, right? And this is a true crime book, so...one would think you would mention this guy's name in the book at this point, right?

Oh well, maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe this "business partner" will show up later in the book in some other context (or contexts). And then surely we will find out what his name is! After all, it would be EXTREMELY unusual if this guy kept popping up in this book, over and over again, and was only described throughout as the "business partner"...


Update 4: One last note on Chapter One:
"After meeting with [Grant Roy] Higgins eliminated Roy and Lockhart as potential suspects."
It's interesting that police made this determination so early, at Roy's first meeting with the police. My assumption, and that of many others, has always been that it was the Black's Beach escapade is what finally "cleared" them in the eyes of the police. So, good to know.

On to Chapter 2...


Update 5: Chapter 1 set up the crime scene. Chapters 2 and 3 take the next logical step in a crime drama book, and describe the victim.

Chapter 2 is all about Kocis' early life, much much attention being focused on the 2001 arrest due to his involvement with the 15 year old. Stoner even interviewed the detective on this old case, which is a lot of effort to get details about an episode that, IMO, does not really have that much to do with the murder drama per se. I suppose it was determined to portray the victim accurately here, warts and all, and this was something couldn't be just glossed over.

And there are a lot of warts. Besides the 15 year old, there are character references, including an extensive quote from Kevin Clarke (jeez Kevin, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel!). On the positive side are testimonials by his family. You can see the problem here. If Cobra wasn't founded and named until 2002, what was this ongoing porn operation of his in 2001? Some sort of proto-Cobra? Or did he just not bother to register the name until 2002?

If it's the latter explanation, then that's somewhat interesting. The same sort of lack of attention to legal and administrative details is exactly what would get him into trouble in 2004...


Update 6: Chapter 3 gets into the history of Bryan and Cobra Video. Some of the examples given are excellent in depicting just how creepy this all was, ie, a film description by Kocis: "I had to get three forms of ID on little Jonathan as this nineteen-year-old guy looks much younger than his years." Oh, if only that'd really been his standard practice ...

Then we get to one of the most important parts of the book...if not THE most important part. The section "Enter Sean Lockhart as "Brent Corrigan."" Now, here's the part where Bryan sees Brent on webcam for the very first time, and afterwards, Brent is convinced to do underage porn. This is where it all began.

So, it's important IMO to get this exactly right. And the book here...CAME SO CLOSE...but not quite. It fell short, I would say, by one sentence.

The book covers all the salient details, namely: 1) "Lockhart attributes pressure from both his boyfriend and Kocis for deciding to go ahead with the deception." and 2) "Believing a lie about his actual age was "no big deal" and that "nobody would get in trouble and that it was common that boys worked underage in the industry," (Number 2 could have been a bit better written, however: "His boyfriend convinced him that believing a lie ... etc." would have been much better. Make it clear to the audience where the blame for this misperception lies).

But the big thing that is missing here, is any sort of explanation of WHY the boyfriend acted as he did. Siren's Tale and Brent's interview with Jason Sechrest covered Christian Henriquez' (the boyfriend in question) motive very clearly: He was previously rejected as a Cobra model (didn't have the looks), but found a way to weasel back in by offering himself and Brent as a package deal. And so, he convinced Brent to lie about his age, and convinced him it was "no big deal."

The boyfriend's motive here for instigating this deception is very important, IMO. Without it, an uninitiated reader is tempted to be overly skeptical of Brent's account. "Why would this boyfriend do this? What's in it for him?" I can imagine the uninitiated reader thinking.

Now, as you all know, I healthy respect for skepticism. But skepticism needs to be well founded and well informed. And by not mentioning WHY the boyfriend did what he did in this case, conditions exist for an unwarranted level of skepticism to breed here.

And this is a pet peeve of mine, I will admit. To this day I still see comments about Brent, to the effect that he "knowingly lied about his age", without mentioning the two highly important details 1) he was coerced into it by his boyfriend at the time and 2) his boyfriend deceived him as to what the consequences would be. Those additional details need to enter the conversation.

So ONE MORE SENTENCE as to Henriquez' motive for doing what he did would have been invaluable here. One more crucial sentence wouldn't have made the book too long, and would have greatly aided clarity and comprehension of this critical moment.

And for extra credit "style" points, one more sentence could have gone in, to the effect that the boyfriend did get into his Cobra porn, for one scene...and then was immediately discarded by Kocis as if he were a used diaper. Not that this was crucial event in the whole saga, but it is an amusing detail which would have given the reader a mild chuckle at this point.


Update 7: The rest of Chapter 3 is generally outstanding, and I'm very glad the book opted to cover it in detail. I've always said you can't really fully understand the murder, unless you know the drama that preceded it, and the state of mind that existed both in the participants and in the public at large.

Some final random thoughts on Chapter 3:

1) "Signs of strain surface". This is a critical section which seems to have a large gap in it, namely how the final working relationship between Brent and Bryan went south so fast. Which BTW is not the authors' fault; the only available source for this period, Brent's Siren's Tale, tantalizingly cuts off at this point. All we can do is speculate, while the authors, who don't really have that luxury, did the best they could with what they had to work with.

I do wish, however, that the "I am the BOSS" email excerpt had been quoted in the book, verbatim. It's provenance is unquestioned (BB made an extensive effort to explain it away at one point, arguing that it had to be understood that Kocis was "angry" when he wrote it, etc...) and nothing does a better job, IMO, of giving the audience a window into the mind of both participants at this critical juncture. All we get is "After several angry phone calls, e-mails, and texts between the two ..." which IMO doesn't quite have the attention grabbing effect of an actual one of those emails.

2) "In initial postings, [Jason Sechrest] seemed to take Kocis' position, but incidents to follow seemed to push Sechrest and others in the "gay porn establishment" towards Lockhart's position.", then goes on to describes Kocis sending the hired goons to Micky's in West Hollywood. I never thought before how the hired goons was a turning point, but reflecting on it now I can see how this must indeed have been the case. In fact, it was this incident which first made me aware of the existence of the whole drama (when Jody Wheeler wrote about it). So, it's fair to say it was a turning point for those outside the establishment as well.

3) "Does Cobra Video live on?" and following sections. Good sections, but why here? Seems like the back of the book would be a better spot, along with the rest of the where-are-they-now reminiscing. Not a big deal really, but just seems odd.


Update 8: Chapter 4 moves into Harlow and Joe territory. And it's not to far into the chapter when we encounter a hum-dinger of a fact: "It reflected the huge investment the couple put into marketing...more than $120,000 annually in advertisements placed in gay publications in Baltimore, Richmond and Washington, DC."

$120 grand a year in advertising? In three local gay media markets? OK, I'm no expert on what advertising costs these days, but I'm having trouble believing this. So naturally, I go to the footnotes. Let's see here, this is Chapter 4, footnote 1 on this little factoid, checking it out I see: "Kerekes letter to AES, 5-4-09"

Oh lord. Well, all I can say is...that explains it!

I'll have more to say on the value of these interviews with and letters from Joe as time goes by...but for now, lets just say that my initially very low expectations have been non-exceeded.


Update 9: Wow: "The dichotomy of Joe Kerekes is one that goes all the way to his sexual identity as well...."I still do not call myself gay. I just love Harlow.""

Plus: "Kerekes says his feelings for Cuadra remain strong..."We are still hot and heavy. I have hundreds of letters that I have received since our arrest (from Harlow)..."

All of these quotes comes from the post-trial "Kerekes letter to AES".

Now, stop and think about this for a minute. Lets say these "hundreds" of love letters from Harlow to Joe exist, and some if not many (I'm assuming) also date post trial. The same trial where Harlow called Joe a controlling monster who forced him into a murder plot.

That's some Stockholm Syndrome!

Then let's say (and I know this is a pipe dream, but still) Harlow's effort to get a new trial succeeds. What defense is he going to use now, at this new trial? I presume these love letters have been reviewed by prison authorities and very likely photocopied. And are FULLY subpoenable.

Good luck with that "I did it because Joe is evil" defense!


Update 10: "[Hensley's] claim that a U.S. Senator was among the clients for BoisRUs was never confirmed."

A pity. This gets back to all the Harlow "mystery client" conspiracy theories of old, such as the volume of the BBTs being turned down at a certain point while played in the court proceedings, as observed by Quickysrt.

I suspect if the mystery were ever solved, we'd also find out who is currently paying Fannick.

237 comments:

1 – 200 of 237   Newer›   Newest»
will g said...

Well well look who came out of hibernation! Another year bites the dust.

This "live blog" of your re-reading of the book sounds like a great springboard for discussion. That'll be a good way to refresh our memories as well as yours. I only wish I'd taken some notes at the time, or highlighted passages, or something. Hopefully your observations will bring it all back.

Meanwhile, in other news aside from the book, as I'm sure you saw on PC's trial blog, there's this little matter of Harlow's PCRA petition, wherein he claims gross incompetence by his lawyers and puts forth a new "duress" defense. We'd all love to hear your thoughts on that I'm sure.

jim said...

"We'd all love to hear your thoughts on that I'm sure."

[snort!] [eyeroll!]

To elaborate ... Joe was in a separate prison the whole time. And still is, for that matter.

The 3 way jail calls. IIRC, Harlow telling Joe to shut up (or words to that effect).

I could go on, but you get the picture. Harlow ain't goin' nowhere.

The more interesting question about all this, which you correctly pointed out Will, is who is paying for all this?

Anonymous said...

What happened to ree martain I heard justin Hensley gotten married.

Geoff Harvard said...

Who is paying Fannick? What happened to Ree? Did the chinchilla coat sell and she absconded? Justin Effing Hensley! Hasn't he been arrested at least for littering? Nobody would be here if at some point he were not fascinated with Sean Lockhart. Is anyone still enchanted? As I predicted a year ago, I bought the book but didn't read beyond the first ten pages.

will g said...

"Nobody would be here if at some point he were not fascinated with Sean Lockhart."

Hate to always disagree with you Geoff, but that's certainly not the case with me. My interest in this had nothing to do with a pre-existing "fascination" with Sean. That was the accusation that Renee and others used to trot out as proof of bias in those of us who were certain of H&J's guilt and Sean and Grant's innocence.

I paid very little attention to Brent Corrigan before the murder, though of course I'd heard of him, mainly due to the underage scandal.

(My first typo-related deletion! Sorry.)

Geoff Harvard said...

Will, denial is not just a river in Egypt. How would you ever get to the Kocis story unless you lived in the Scranton area or else followed Brent Corrigan?

will g said...

Umm, Geoff, a little thing called the INTERNET that featured numerous posts about the murder on blogs that I followed.

Why would I try to cover up my "fascination" with Brent Corrigan? And I think Jim is in the same camp, his interest in this didn't derive from that either, to the best of my knowledge.

PC said...

"Who is paying Fannick?"

That's a good question, and until attorney/client privilage laws change, we'll probably never know.

If I had to take an educated guess - look for someone in North Carolina.

PC said...

"What happened to Ree?"

While instrumental in providing the infamous jail house 3-ways, Renee was always considered to be a 'loaded gun', and quite honestly wasn't that big of a deal in the trial.

She left her Virginia Beach house after foreclosure, and moved to Ft. Worth, TX.

Geoff Harvard said...

PC, lots of things seem to lead back to North Carolina, and we discussed a specific address in Greensboro, but I don't think there's much money there, just a couple of guys with lots of time to play catfish.
At the time of the trial, Ree was in Fort Worth running an online militaria business.

PC said...

Geoff, if you're looking "in Greensboro" - you picked the wrong place. Try the Triangle.

PC said...

I'll give you a hint... the city name starts with R and end in H.

Geoff Harvard said...

I guess that's a hint that I should go ahead and read the book for the answer. Too bad it lacks an index.

Anonymous said...

Long-time follower (lurker). Hope all is well and miss your great writing and work Jim. Best to you and everyone else.

Looking forward to the book discussion.

jim said...

Yeah I documented how I became interested in all this in one of the early posts on this blog. None of that's changed.

jim said...

I'm experimenting with using different color text for each of my updates, so as to be able to spot them easily at a glance.

OTOH, this might lead to unfavorable comparisons ...

Anonymous said...

Different colors would be cool. But looking at your site and commenting options, for example, no reply option to reply directly to a post, think that it might be challenging no matter what.

jim said...

Yeah I'm toying with the idea of making whole new posts, which would solve that problem too.

will g said...

"OTOH, this might lead to unfavorable comparisons ..."

I was JUST about to say that. My eyes!

Hah, and now I see you also beat me to the punch in suggesting separate posts for each chapter, with their own threads.

I'll read and comment on the RED update tomorrow.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Hi Jim sorry for the late arrival I just noticed Will's twitter feed tonight. Yes Twitter the main way anyone keeps up with porn today! Can you all imagine if the Cobra war then trial discussion had played out on Twitter or on Facebook?

Ole Blogger remains far superior for the in depth discussion and controversial subjects that consumed our attention in 2007-09.

My own review of Cobra Killer last June may have escaped your attention Jim.

http://dewayneinsd.com/cobrakiller-review/

I think this was the longest screed on my part in a couple of years! When you are writing about porn two paragraphs is a long post!

I struggled with the review for a couple of reasons I had moved on for one. Another more uncomfortable issue for me was the embarrassing obsession I had with this case at the time and the number of years I followed the Cobra Wars!

As you mention in your red update (separate posts please ;-) ) for many of us the murder of Bryan Kocis was the mid-point of the story especially to those of us who mark the beginnings of the Cobra War to July 2005!

In writing the review on the blog and on Facebook I had to confront some of my own behavior and looking in the mirror objectively is never pleasant!

A note this March I begin my 7th year as a blogger but do you know what is really <<< (yes still my favorite unnecessary word ) going to be something to discuss next year on Victory Day??

March 2014 will be one month past the TENTH anniversary of a little shoot in Ft Lauderdale Florida that set this whole sordid saga in motion. Sean Lockhart a 17 year old San Diego High School junior shooting Every PoolBoys Dream.

I am a huge fan of alternate history's what if Sean had missed his flight and some other hot 17 year old had wandered into Byrans beach view the next day?

We would never have heard of Brent Corrigan and Bryan Kocis would be alive (and just might be sitting in some Federal Prison on a child pornography conviction) ;-)

Thats the thing about alternate history's a small change in a timeline can have a huge impact!

DeWayne In San Diego said...

The next comment is directed at Peter Conway..PC are you aware of the brewing public battle between Michael Melnick and Judge Joseph Sklarosky?

Seems not much has changed in one of the most corrupt Judaical backwaters in America. The NEPA judges still seem to have the stench of judicial corruption to wallow in like pigs in the trough.

Melnick is a courageous lawyer his real calling should be with the Feds not the corrupt NEPA politicos!

He should be a US District Attorney instead!

http://citizensvoice.com/news/prosecutors-cite-online-comments-in-requesting-judge-s-recusal-1.1454871

will g said...

DeWayne, it's so funny how people with a skewed perspective can twist a story like that about Melnick and the judge to suit their own purposes. Case in point: Peter Everhard's take on it, based on this earlier Citizens Voice article, is Harlow Cuadra Prosecutor Michael Melnick Ordered To Jail! The post itself is even wackier, claiming that no prosecutor in his right mind EVER asks a judge to recuse himself. Anything to bolster his thesis that HARLOW WAS RAILROADED.

I could swear that last year, when Jim brought up this "brink of arrest" matter, PC said he couldn't comment but that all would be revealed when the book was published. But I looked and can't find that comment in last year's thread. Maybe it was on the PC's blog? In any case, I would hope that there is SOME factual basis for it, I can't imagine Peter or Andrew just making it up...

will g said...

*Maybe it was on PC's blog?

(I was tempted to delete and repost to fix that errant "the," but it's too much trouble with all that hyperlink code...)

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Hi Will yes I agree Peter Everhards interpretation was strange especially the claim prosecutors can never demand recusal! Lawyers file motions with higher courts to do just that whenever they see a clear conflict or such an obvious sign of judicial misconduct.

As for the actual story I became aware through good ole Google News alert's.

PC said...

"Geoff Harvard said...
I guess that's a hint that I should go ahead and read the book for the answer. Too bad it lacks an index."


I'll admit that I found it strange not to have an index too, but apparently that seems to be the publishing 'thing' these days. I guess if nothing else, it's a good way to 'make' folks read the whole thing. LOL!

PC said...

"DeWayne In San Diego said...
The next comment is directed at Peter Conway..PC are you aware of the brewing public battle between Michael Melnick and Judge Joseph Sklarosky?
"

DeWayne,

Even though it's been years since the trial, I still keep up with the stuff that goes on up there.

PC said...

"I can't imagine Peter or Andrew just making it up..."

I can assure you there is nothing 'made up' in the book. There are subjects that didn't even make in the book, due to us not being able to independently verify certain claims.

will g said...

Of course I know that PC. I also know Jim says it doesn't really matter in the end, but since it's been discussed here at length two years running, is there anything you can tell us to clarify that "brink of arrest" passage? Was it, as I suspect, just badly worded? Because there doesn't seem to be any evidence anywhere that an arrest was imminent, or even contemplated.

will g said...

Just to clarify my previous comment, when I said that I suspect it was just badly worded, I mean that perhaps the authors meant to say "brought him scorn and left him vulnerable to arrest on federal child endangerment laws." Or something like that.

PC said...

"will g said...
Of course I know that PC.
"

Oh I know you do Will. I just wanted to post that for anyone reading this blog that may get another impression. :)

jim said...

I've gone from the garish red to indicate my latest update(s), to a more sedate teal (which I'm sure you'll all agree is a huge improvement).

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Jim the business partner is obviously Lee Bergeron I recall at some point Peter said the publisher demanded some name redaction on behalf of the legal dept. He can explain better but we all know the third man in LSG was of course Lee Bergeron.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

A note on Higgins I heard the same early on (from Grant of course and based on alibis and their implicating Harlow and Joe) that Grant and Sean were rapidly eliminated as suspects.

And yes the online speculation continued for months but I think you will see that is exactly what PA authority's wanted.

Make Joe and Harlow think they had gotten away with it and that Sean and Grant were the focus of the early investigation.

Brilliant job of police deflection and of course pure hell for Sean and Grant who would be pilloried for months

PC said...

"DeWayne In San Diego said...
Jim the business partner is obviously Lee Bergeron I recall at some point Peter said the publisher demanded some name redaction on behalf of the legal dept. He can explain better but we all know the third man in LSG was of course Lee Bergeron.
"

This would be correct. The publisher's legal counsel advised that we: "Remove all reference to him in LSG Media discussions. Refer to him just as "third partner" or "business partner" or "estranged business partner"."

Why exactly? Don't know. Andrew and I weren't part of that discussion.

jim said...

Fascinating. Obviously, what happened behind the scenes was that Merlin Lee Bergeron sent a pre-emptive "legal letter" to your publisher, and your publisher opted to cave. This is unfortunate.

This identity obscuring sticks out like a sore thumb...even to an uninitiated reader. I can see people reading this, running across "business partner" a number of times, figuring ok, maybe he's not someone not worth mentioning...then they get to the part where it's revealed he's one of the last people to talk to Kocis on the phone the day he was murdered.

At this point the uninitiated reader is probably thinking: "Who the F is this guy?!?!!?!?"

So, like I said, this is unfortunate. But understandable, I suppose, that the publisher's legal department would opt for the path of least resistance.

You know, he gave an interview for the Rolling Stone article (in which he was quoted about an alleged instance of Grant shouting at him outside his home). So, it seems he feels he has the right to interject himself in this drama when it suits his fancy, then run and claim some sort of "privacy" right (I'm assuming that's what he based this assumed letter on) to stay out of it when it does not.

On that basis alone...if I had been the publisher's legal council, I would have told Lee to go to hell.

Like I said, it's unfortunate. It's just one more shady chapter in this guy's incredibly shady history.

http://silenceofthechinchillas.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-musingsabout-lee-story.html

Geoff Harvard said...

Did the Health Department ever shut down Lee's "restaurant" in SD?

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Any threat of litigation by Lee Bergeron would have been an empty threat he is the one who is usually sued by unpaid vendors and ex- employees who are owed last paychecks from failed restaurants!

Still Publishing is in dire straights in the USA right now no legal dept wants even a merest whisper of the word "sue"

Geoff yes his last one (the burger joint) failed about 4-5 months after he was served with unpaid bills owed to vendors including San Diego Restaurant Supply.

The Fiesta Cantina (the other Lee Restaurant in Hillcrest) on University that Jim visited is one of the most popular restaurants in Hillcrest. Very obvious Bergeron can take a slam dunk location and STILL FAIL while the new operators have succeeded.

PC said...

"jim said...
Fascinating. Obviously, what happened behind the scenes was that Merlin Lee Bergeron sent a pre-emptive "legal letter" to your publisher, and your publisher opted to cave. This is unfortunate.
"

I highly doubt Lee sent any letter, as this was recommended on 12/2/2011 - well before anyone knew who was going to be mentioned in the book (except for the obvious). I think it's more in line with what DeWayne said - no need to take any chances.

PC said...

"I could swear that last year, when Jim brought up this "brink of arrest" matter, PC said he couldn't comment but that all would be revealed when the book was published. But I looked and can't find that comment in last year's thread. Maybe it was on the PC's blog? In any case, I would hope that there is SOME factual basis for it, I can't imagine Peter or Andrew just making it up..."

In the course of investigating the book, sources indicated that Kocis' activities regarding alleged use of an underage actor were not only something the FBI reviewed, according to one confidential source, but also an earlier, additional allegation around the time of his 2001 arrest-plea agreement also was reviewed, but not pursued by Pennsylvania officials. As most everyone knows, the FBI never acknowledges ongoing or previous investigations publicly, particularly those that do not result in actual charges.

will g said...

Very interesting PC, thanks for the info. I still think "brink of arrest" might have been misleadingly worded, but it does sound like they were taking the allegations against Kocis more seriously than Sean and Grant thought when they spoke to the FBI.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Will irony is the two who were truly on the "Brink of Arrest" were Joe and Harlow for their prostitution activity's.

If only VA Beach police had moved a bit faster..

will g said...

Chapter 2 giving you trouble Jim? LOL it's been two days since your last update.

jim said...

I'm going about this slowly, it'll take a while...

will g said...

Take all the time you need! I'll just obsessively check back 20 times a day to see if you've updated.

PC said...

"One issue in this chapter has me a bit confused, however. It has to do with when Kocis began shooting porn professionally. It's stated that in May 2001 he lured in the 15 year old "by offering him work preparing mail orders for gay porn videos that Kocis produced and distributed from his home under the name Cobra Video." Then he files for bankruptcy in 2001, listing online video sales of $1,800 a month. Then he founds Cobra Video in September 2002, by registering the name.

You can see the problem here. If Cobra wasn't founded and named until 2002, what was this ongoing porn operation of his in 2001? Some sort of proto-Cobra? Or did he just not bother to register the name until 2002?
"

Bryan Kocis likely ran Cobra Video as a sole proprietor (DBA) prior to 2002, after which time he created and registered the Business Entity Name Cobra Video LLC with the state of Pennsylvania on September 20, 2002 - later incorporating the name in 2005.

(To be honest, I don't have the time or energy to go back through thousands of records to research it again).

will g said...

You updated! Yay!!

Yes, one thing Kevin will never be accused of is holding back. Despite a certain idiot claiming he was "receiving reports of Kevin Clarke's death," he is very much alive and has participated in these "reunions" in the past. Perhaps if someone reminds him he'll stop by again this year.

Wikipedia says "Bryan Kocis established Cobra Video in 2001, concentrating on the production of gay movies starring young twinks," so yes, it existed prior to being incorporated.

One thing I do remember from my first reading of Chapter 2 is being a little taken aback by this quote from JC Adams about Kocis:

Kocis' productions were "popular in that genre, that sort of twink sub-genre that he specialized in, but in the broader sense of the industry, he was not well known and was not a 'player.' I would say he was virtually unknown in the industry."

The only thing I can figure is that he's referring to Kocis the man, who nobody knew personally, who did not attend industry events and was not headquartered in Los Angeles, and thus wasn't a "player" in that sense. Because his name and product were certainly well known in the industry at the time of his death. The murder wouldn't have gotten the attention it got on industry blogs, including Adams' blog, if he weren't.

will g said...

Oops, I meant to say Cobra existed prior to being registered in 2002, not incorporated.

jim said...

What I took from the Adams quote was that this was in the gold rush days of amateur gay porn (the book will cover this topic in more detail in the next chapter) of which Harlow and Joe were a part of too, and Kocis was just one more minnow in a huge sea of folks putting home made gay porn on the internet and making a bundle. He was probably well known in his niche market, but that's all it was, a niche.

I think this famous drama has given people the impression that Cobra (and of course, Boybatter) were bigger players than they actually were, before the drama and fame came.

jim said...

This is of course all very subjective. I never heard of Cobra Video before all this, whereas companies like Falcon I would have recognized by name back then. OTOH, a person working in the industry may or may not have heard of Cobra, depending on whether they worked in that niche.

will g said...

I just think that if "he" is referring to the company, and not the individual, then "he was virtually unknown in the industry" is greatly overstated. Of course Cobra wasn't a "player" along the lines of Falcon, but it was nominated for several GayVN awards, if memory serves, and you can't really say a company that receives nominations is "virtually unknown in the industry."

will g said...

Just another note about the JC Adams quote: I checked his archives and in his post about the murder he called Cobra Video "one of gay adult’s popular amateur studios," without even any "niche" qualification. So there's either a bit of revisionist thinking on his part or, as I'm pretty sure now is more likely, he's referring to Bryan himself as being "virtually unknown."

OTOH, his archives contain no mention of Cobra Video prior to the underage controversy, so...

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Will to clarify a bit on JC Adams and he and I discussed this once some years back. I think we are referring to two different time periods and JC Adams (and the porn old guard) evolving awareness of Cobra Video,Bryan Kocis and Brent Corrigan.

I greatly respect JC Adams but he would be the first to admit the Twink niche held no interest for him, he tried to ignore the growing American Bareback movement from 1999-2005.

He has readily admitted he never heard of Brent Corrigan or Cobra Video before the underage porn announcement from Seans then lawyer Chad Belville in Sept 2005.

Certainly by Jan 2007 everyone in Gay porn was aware of Brent Corrigan the underage twink. Bryan and Cobra Video were not as widely known by porn insiders and producers.

Of course the Twink porn consumer's knew they had put Cobra on the map!

I remember people in Gay Porn would still refer to Bryan as that Bareback Twink producer not even aware of his name.(this was in mid 2006)

We have discussed this many times Twink porn is a niche and to many porn producers and studios that was an excuse to ignore or discount the very real sales and money Cobra made in 2002-2006.

When I started blogging Gay Porn in 2007 I noticed the residual attitudes that must have been much more pervasive during Cobra Videos early days and when Bryan was alive.

He was out of the California and New York Gay Porn mainstream,he focused on twinks and he shot bareback.

He was not only a pariah to the old guard he was someone they really did not care to acknowledge or discuss.

Professional jealousy? Yes and an attitude of ignore him and discount the impact he was having on Gay Porn.

The same attitude was shown to other then new companies Eurocreme and the many Czech producers whose porn DVD's were flooding and shoving out the Falcon and C1R titles in the middle of the decade.

Bryans true innovation in 2002-03 was the direct to customer sales model thru his website.

And filming American Bareback Twink porn both alien concepts to the Mainstream Studios.

Cobra was being copied by the many new up and coming studios during this time period Harlow and Joe were not the only ones to notice the sea change.

So historical revisionism?

Certainly some of that but more an evolving late awareness of Bryan Kocis who even in January 2007 was indeed "virtually unknown in the industry"

Word Semantics Will in the porn biz "in the industry" refers to Producers,writers,crew,pornstars, the studios certainly not the consumers!

The consumers view or knowledge of Gay Porn is irrelevant to them then and now.

JC Adams take on Bryan and Cobra in January 2007 was the general view among the industry insiders.

will g said...

Thanks DeWayne, that does throw some light on the matter. I am surprised that JC actually says he never heard of Cobra or Brent before 2005. When I checked his archive and found no mention of them before then, I assumed it was probably because he was deliberately not giving a bareback studio any coverage, which I imagine used to be the norm back then for many bloggers who wanted to keep good relations with the "establishment" industry and also not alienate some readers. But never heard of them? That's surprising.

I do still think that quote might give a reader the wrong impression that Cobra was a complete nonentity in the larger world of gay porn. I can imagine some saying to themselves, "Then why am I reading a whole book about him if he was such a nobody?" It threw me when I read it, I remember I even mentioned it on the phone to Peter.

will g said...

Good point in your Chapter 3 update. I remember your extensive posts about Chris Henriquez, "The Guy Who Caused This Whole Mess," so I certainly understand why you think not discussing his motive is an unfortunate omission from the book. I was just looking at that section and, if I'm not mistaken, it also seems that Henriquez' NAME isn't even mentioned, he's just referred to as "his boyfriend." Boy did he get off easy!

(Of course I can't be sure that Henriquez is never mentioned by name in the book as there's no index...)

jim said...

Yeah, his name is not mentioned, but since this is the only time it comes up (unlike Lee Bergeron, who keeps popping up in interesting places several times) I don't think the omission is that critical, in this instance.

And while we are on the subject, I was going to mention this earlier in response to PC but never got around to it: I am absolutely 100% beyond a doubt sure MLB got out of the book via a threatening legal letter.

And I'll tell you why. MLB has, I've noticed, become VERY image conscious. Go ahead and Google "Merlin Lee Bergeron" and the first stories that pop up are innocent stuff like his Linkedin prifiles...and obscure blog articles about him and Katrina puppies.

Effen Katrina puppies.

Stop and think about this for a minute. Who else would have dreamed up a story like...OMG...Katrina puppies...except a highly paid public relations/ image makeover flak. This just SMELLS of this sort of propaganda.

On top of that, who see the Google results and obvious heavy hand of SEO (search engine optimization, for those of you not familiar with the lingo), pushing ridiculously obscure blogs about his supposed Katrina puppy work and bogus boilerplate stories about his being some sort of art expert, and pushing REAL stories about him down to page 6 and beyond.

In fact, scrolling down I can't even find a mention of his greatest crime, the intentional looting and destruction of a once hugely popular gay ski weekend several years ago.

No, make no mistake about his, MLB has been actively engaged in a campaign to whitewash his image. So, no doubt he had he lawyers send PC's publisher a letter or two, and threatened him. The fact, as PC mentions, that no one back then knew for sure he'd be included is neither here nor there, he obviously guessed (correctly) that in the narrative telling of this tale, his name would necessarily pop up several times.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Oh that reminds me while on the subject of MLB he sold off the old 2006 Brent Corrigan Online members video catalog to Studmall in late 2011. The DVD with a greatest hits package of videos was released early in 2012 I ignored it at the time since I knew who was profiting to the exclusion of Grant and Sean.

I have a friend who bought the DVD and who was a member of BCO in October 2006 he said the video was obviously from the MLB vault not captured from the website or torrents. (the edits were different)

Since Studmall has released the Cobra Video catalog of Brent Corrigan DVD's MLB knew they would be the best way to cover his tracks.

And to think we heard that the video was lost when someone (MLB) didnt pay his storage bills.

I call bullshit on that because anyone esp MLB would have known the value of those videos.

Geoff Harvard said...

If Grant is such a toughguy, why did he leave it at yelling threats out the window of his SUV in the alley at 2 am and not go in and make good on his threats, one coon-ass to another?

will g said...

Is that a rhetorical question?

PC said...

"So, no doubt he had he lawyers send PC's publisher a letter or two, and threatened him."

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The lawyers also told us not to use Henriquez's name - can't imagine he sent a letter too.

will g said...

Since the names of Sean's former business partner and boyfriend are well documented (mostly on this blog!), it seems a bit strange that the lawyers would balk at publishing their names in the book. Anyone can go online and easily find their names, so it seems kind of pointless. But Magnus being a small startup publisher is probably understandably skittish about lawsuits. I would guess that's also why they wanted the book to be so exhaustively annotated, something I probably unfairly complained about in my Amazon review.

PC said...

Well this has been fun, and who knows what chapter Jim is up to now, but I will bid farewell to any additional commenting.

will g said...

That's too bad PC, I think everyone (the few of us commenting and the lurkers) are, or were, looking forward to your responses.

will g said...

LOL that should be "everyone...is, or was..."

I resisted deleting it.

Anonymous said...

Agree, too bad PC left. Always a bit too sensitive and thin-skinned for comments and questions.

jim said...

I get the impression (and this is just a hunch) that PC said something he wasn't supposed to say, and Magnus is now upset. Nothing at all to do with PC being "too sensitive."

Oh well. What ever the reason, it is I agree unfortunate. But we will carry on!

will g said...

On to Chapter 4! (Hint hint.)

will g said...

Oh you weren't done with Chapter 3, sorry didn't mean to jump the gun.

Regarding quoting the "I'm the BOSS" email, you say "its provenance is unquestioned," and I have no doubt it's authentic, but where and when was it quoted for the first time? In the "Siren's Tale"? Because quoting a private email in a blog post, as opposed to in a book, is not as thorny legally. One lawsuit could potentially be enough to bankrupt a small company like Magnus. But I'm just guessing that's the reason, knowing how cautious Magnus' lawyers were.

Your observation about the "WEHT Cobra Video" section is correct, but I think the early chapters have all kinds of problematic back-and-forth chronology that's potentially confusing for the reader. There are even entire passages that get repeated verbatim, which should have been caught by an editor. The entire book would have benefitted from another pass by a good editor.

jim said...

IIRC, it was DeWayne, on his blog, that posted the I am the BOSS email? Am I right, DeW?

Of course, it could have been posted elsewhere first, and DeW was the first place I saw it? Hard to say, because it's been a while and my memory is hazy...

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Not sure myself Jim might have been. Alas comments on my blogspot posts 2007-08 were mostly MIA when I imported into Wordpress in 2009.

PC said...

"jim said...
I get the impression (and this is just a hunch) that PC said something he wasn't supposed to say, and Magnus is now upset. Nothing at all to do with PC being "too sensitive."

Jim, I hate to say it, but your hunch is wrong again. Magnus has no control over what I say or do.

Andrew and I are busy working on addtional projects, and just simply don't have the time to respond to every single question that is asked.

PC said...

I would also like to add that I appreciate everything that you're doing, and when time permits, I'll try to give my two-cents (though it won't be often)

will g said...

Chapter 4 update:

Yes, the ludicrous "$120K/yr" figure should have been accompanied by "claimed Kerekes in a letter to Andrew Stoner." Instead a reader who doesn't bother to check the footnote (like ME in this case) is left to assume it's a documented fact.

This is a problem throughout the book, which I discussed on Amazon, in that it relies SOLELY on the footnotes to inform the reader of where information is coming from, and never does any kind of citation in the text itself. You've found a particularly glaring example here of how that's simply inadequate in some instances.

On a side note, I wish there was a way for us to read Joe's letters, for a good laugh if nothing else. PC did post the first page of one on his blog, and of course there are several excerpts in the book. More please?

jim said...

Yeah a careful reader should always keep the corresponding footnotes dogeared.

PC said...

"On a side note, I wish there was a way for us to read Joe's letters, for a good laugh if nothing else. PC did post the first page of one on his blog, and of course there are several excerpts in the book. More please?"

Not until Harlow's PCRA hearing is determined, and who knows how long that's going to last.

will g said...

Update 9 (still Chapter 4 I presume):

The thing is, if you look at his PCRA petition, I don't think Harlow's really saying he did anything because Joe is evil. The word he uses is "controlling," and he's not admitting to that control resulting in him doing anything BUT staying with Joe after the murder and fleeing with him to Florida. He's certainly not admitting to particpating in, or having any prior knowledge of, the murder. He never said in his trial testimony that Joe "forced him into a murder plot," because that would be admitting he participated in that plot, which he denied.

So in this bizarro world you imagine where Harlow gets a new trial, I don't really see these letters, assuming they exist, as being a huge problem. Hell, he already admitted to sticking with Joe after he found out, to his complete shock and horror, that he was a homicidal maniac, how much worse is it that he continues to write him love letters?

Anyway, Joe's probably lying about the letters.

jim said...

Yeah I've definitely considered the possibility these letters are not real. If they were/are in fact talking frequently by mail post trial however...and I don't think that's totally implausible (they aren't prohibited from communicating, are they?), that would be interesting to know...especially given how Harlow spent his whole trial trashing Joe and blaming it all on him.

Who knows, maybe they're even spending hours a day chatting and texting on their illegal iPhones (see previous Reunion posts)!

will g said...

IF there are post-trial "love letters," I'm sure they stopped once Harlow read the book, especially page 100:

I had work to do, and so did Harlow, to kill Bryan Kocis, a task we had prepared two weeks to perform...

But it's almost impossible to imagine these letters continuing after Joe's ultimate betrayal when he decided (supposedly at the last minute) not to testify on Harlow's behalf. If they did, then yes, despite what I said in my previous comment, I do agree with you that they would be extremely damaging in this hypothetical new trial. The only way Harlow could still "love" Joe after his betrayal is if he knew Joe was telling the truth when he said, in his brief court statement, that he decided he couldn't lie for Harlow.

IF these letters exist, Joe's probably going to destroy them once he reads this blog on his smartphone!

PC said...

"I presume these love letters have been reviewed by prison authorities and very likely photocopied."

While possible, I doubt it. The only letters that are generally read are those of known gang members. Most prison letters are simply checked for contraband and passed on to the recipient.

PC said...

"He's certainly not admitting to particpating in, or having any prior knowledge of, the murder. He never said in his trial testimony that Joe "forced him into a murder plot," because that would be admitting he participated in that plot, which he denied."

That would likely be Chapter 11, but Jim's not there yet.

will g said...

OH MY GOD HE'S A SERIAL KILLER!

Anonymous said...

Hi:

I am one of the lurkers who have been following this since 2007 but have not commented before.

There may be some truth to what Joe says. If you remember, Joe "acquired" the logo "Boys are us" when the previous "owner" was severally beatened up sometime around 2001 (the date was never made clear).

I think also it was Joe who sliced Bryan and then diced him. If Harlow had attempted it, Bryan would never have taken his eyes off of Harlow and there would have been some defensive wounds on the body. Besides Harlow would have been too lazy to stab Bryan after he was dead 28 times. Joe is crazy enough to do that.

will g said...

Hi Anonymous, welcome out of lurkdom.

If you're referring to the "serial killer" letter, yes, the previous owner of that escort service reportedly had a knife pulled on him, and logically Joe is the prime suspect, but that's a far cry from the string of murders he's taking credit for, even if he does also refer to "attempted murder."

And we'll likely never know who did the actual killing of Kocis, but in that case logic points to Harlow, not Joe.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

I am just catching up on the last few updates after a hectic week.

Something I want to bring up since discussion with the "serial killer" letter has broadened the possible criminal activity of Joe and Harlow.

PC and I talked about this on the phone I asked him his take on why nothing was really brought up about the drug angle with Joe and Harlow.

I think for the purposes of the trial PC felt it was immaterial to the murder case. (you dont go off on tangents you need more evidence for when you have them for the murder)

Still this is my take and I have become more convinced I am right as time goes by.

I believe we all know now without doubt that Joe and Harlows main business was Prostitution. Not the porn company or escorting RUNNING a Prostitution business in the fullest sense of the word.

What goes hand in hand with most prostitution services?

Drugs esp Cocaine and Meth and we have those tantalizing clues Harlow admitting on car forums to his problem, the small time busts by two of the escorts (and speculation this is why they were so cooperative at trial)

My gut feeling is Drugs were a much bigger part of Harlow and Joes income stream than we previously thought.

While Escorting/Prostitution is lucrative and we know Joe and Harlow were in heavy debt I bet if you run the overall numbers on what they spent vs borrowed Drug dealing makes up the difference.

And the easy fall into thinking rubbing out the porn competition (and earlier the escorting competitor) was a valid business plan only comes from the mind of a drug dealer!

And speaking of mind I am on more solid ground here.

I have never made any secret of my own personal experience back in the day so this comes down to it takes someone who was there to know the way they think.

Many Many of you have speculated as to why Joe and Harlow had such erratic and downright baseless ideas and crazy illogical mental reasoning before during the planning of the murder and flight back to Virginia and post murder behavior.

The half-assed "planning" like the elaborate precautions of buying throw away cell phones then the illogical use of them in their own neighborhood. The Yahoo email account, Or the Walmart shopping trip the day of the murder or checking into the hotel.

Flashes of over-planning then completely fucked up idiocy.

Many of you have said this was careless stupidity.

No this was classic Meth Swiss Cheese thinking.

Any cop who has dealt with Meth users/dealers would agree with me.

Harlow we know used drugs. (we can assume Joe because its almost unheard of for one to do so and not the other)

I suspect they were dealer/users as well which makes so much of their actions plausible and understandable.

Now what about the same thinking on display on during the long incarceration and wait for trial?

The Swiss Cheese effect never entirely disappears even when you are sober. It is brain damage after all.

will g said...

Yes DeWayne lingering brain damage must be to blame for Joe thinking anyone would buy what he's selling in that letter. Maybe if he went to the police so they could close some unsolved murders, and then pled guilty to them in court, he might have some credibility, instead of trying to scam a fat payday out of them.

Once a hustler, always a hustler.

jim said...

Anonymous is spot on by mentioning the earlier knife attack on Joe's former pimp. That incident IS important (along with other examples of Joe being more than a bit nuts), and the book will cover it later in this Chapter. I'll have more to say on what I think about it when I get to that part.

As to Joe being the killer...well, I'll admit it's possible. But I'm going to have to say it's unlikely. Reason being, for this scenario to work, you'd have to have Harlow enter the house first (as he's the one Kocis would open the door for after peering through the peephole), drink wine with Kocis, listen to Kocis yak on his cell phone with Lee Bergeron and his attorney (whose name escapes me right now), then Joe would somehow barge in and start slicing and stabbing.

Problem with this theory is, there was if I'm not mistaken NO evidence of defensive wounds on Kocis (ie, arms and hands). Most of the 28 stabs were to the "sternum and abdomen", with an extra one being the near-decapitating slice at the neck (the very first wound, which killed him instantly) and another oddly placed stab near his groin.

I don't see how Joe could have gotten the drop on Kocis and made a clean kill to the neck like that, being that he would have been a complete stranger barging into the house with a knife.

Harlow, OTOH, could have gotten the drop on Kocis, by simply waiting for an opportune moment to strike.

Of course, I suppose the Joe-barging-in theory would work if we assume the buff, weightlifting Harlow pinned Kocis' arms behind him as Joe came barging in. So, MAYBE that's how it happened.

Like I said, I'll admit it's possible. But not as likely as the Harlow-did-it theory, IMO. The timing of it all with two of them acting in concert like that would have been tricky, to say the least.

Anonymous said...

I believe Joe is plain loco. Of Jim did an excellent job of explaining that several years ago.

The Joe's madness works is a need to feel superior to everyone else. Hence the need to scam people out of money proving how much smarter he is. Of course it also means letting somebody know how smart he is.

Having lots of money, a big house and lots of possession is "proof" that he is superior.

He is even feels the need to be superior to Harlow. The problem for him was that he needed Harlow (the younger, much better looking, escort) as a meal ticket, but he at the same time was jealous of him.

At to this a hair trigger temper and zero patience in getting his way. {Example, when he wanted a response from Sean & Grant, left three messages with them demanding an immediate response. Those three messages were sent within a minute}. Renee also makes reference to his lack of patience.

In short, Joe is one 'scary dude'. It is most likely that Harlow feared that if he left Joe, Joe would track him down and harm either Harlow or more likely the people he was with.

We also had the episode described by Jim as the pistol whipping episode when Joe may have fired shots towards Harlow. Jason Hensley in his testimony talks about Harlow protecting him without mentioning whom he was being protected from or how. My guess is that Joe was verbally abusing Jason and most likely trying to cheat him out of money earned escorting.

However given this picture of Joe, and Harlow's prior criminal record of driving a car with tinted windows, which of the two persons would be the most likely person to slice, dice and flambe Bryan Kocis.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe Harlow or Joe were on drugs. A heavy imbiber of Meth would suffer major withdrawal symptoms. There was no mention of prison records showing either having those withdrawals.

In his racing blog (presumably written by Harlow) in 2006, Harlow mentions kicking a habit. Most likely he refering to having stopped smoking cigarettes. Saying Harlow was on meth or other drugs is an unnecessary assumption that defies Occam's Razor.

Anonymous said...

Last comment, having Harlow hold Bryan's hands while Joe was cutting his throat, does not sound very likely. Harlow, most likely in that scenario, would have been hurt by Joe's knife. Harlow also would have been covered with the full spray of Bryan's Blood.

If anything, Harlow was holding Bryan's attention by getting undressed, maybe wiggling his posterior as he stripped teased. He was at the other end of the room, and Bryan was leaning forward to get a good look, his neck in a perfect position for Joe to slice him from behind.

Of course Harlow would never have admitted to doing that to the jury when he gave his testimony.

will g said...

Anonymous, the reason Jim, I and others think it's very unlikely Joe did the stabbing is because it's very unlikely he would be able to get inside the house. As amusing as your description of Harlow distracting Kocis by "wiggling his posterior" is, you neglect to say how it is that Joe gained entry. Kocis wouldn't simply have let him in, and Harlow's testimony saying Joe muscled his way into the house and started attacking Kocis after he opened the door is absurd. Kocis was famously paranoid about answering the door to strangers.

Anonymous said...

Will:

Couldn't Harlow have left the door ajar when he entered the house. Or while Bryan was on the phone, could he have excused himself to go the Bathroom, conveniently passing by an outside door which he then unlocked.

If Harlow was responsible for letting Joe in, it would explain why he gave that ridiculous story at the trial.

There is a second possibility. Joe picked the lock himself without help from Harlow.

Remember what I said about that "soul of patience" Joseph Michael Kerekes. Can you really imagine him staying still in that cold car, all night if needed, until Harlow came out or even trusting Harlow to do the job up to "Joe's Standards". Remember this is the same Harlow who lost his return air ticket for the flight back from Las Vegas.

I have a theory about why Harlow and Joe went there, but I find myself questioning Joe's part in it. Unless you are dying for more speculation, I will try to stick to the facts in any comments I make.

will g said...

Occam's razor, which you cited earlier, applies here. The scenarios you describe leave too much to chance, and are full of too many variables, for even a pair as bumbling as those two to have relied upon. Simple logic says that the one who is already inside the house would be the one tasked with carrying out the murder.

But in the end, it really doesn't matter.

will g said...

Update 10:

"I suspect if the mystery were ever solved, we'd also find out who is currently paying Fannick."

I don't quite get the connection. Are you saying the "mystery client" would be paying Harlow's legal fees as a bribe to keep him quiet? That seems a little far-fetched. If he wants to keep his connection to Harlow quiet, the last thing he should be doing is funneling money to him.

PC said...

"A pity. This gets back to all the Harlow "mystery client" conspiracy theories of old, such as the volume of the BBTs being turned down at a certain point while played in the court proceedings, as observed by Quickysrt."

If you'll recall, I posted the BBT's word for word from the original transcript years ago (since removed), but anyone that read them would note that there was never a "name" mentioned.

Furthermore, Andrew and I bought all of Harlow's official court trial transcripts and there's no mention of a name there either. I think it's safe to say that this "claim" can be grouped with all the other lies the two were famous for.

jim said...

"Are you saying the "mystery client" would be paying Harlow's legal fees as a bribe to keep him quiet? That seems a little far-fetched. If he wants to keep his connection to Harlow quiet, the last thing he should be doing is funneling money to him."

I think Mystery Senator would be smart enough to do it through an intermediary (ie, Mitch Halford).

jim said...

" I think it's safe to say that this "claim" can be grouped with all the other lies the two were famous for."

This particular quote is coming from Hensley though. A shame he and Shunk remained so reclusive/hostile, as it would be interesting to have interviewed them.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Hensley and Shunk

Sounds like a low rent law firm

yes Jim I think they would have been good interview subjects...

alas probably would have had to interview them at an hourly rate though (4 hour minimum plus cab fare)
;-)

PC said...

"I think Mystery Senator would be smart enough to do it through an intermediary (ie, Mitch Halford)."

Perhaps we could group "Mystery Senator" with the "Mystery NFL Player" - you know, the one that supposedly had the foot fetish?

Neither claim was ever substantiated.

PC said...

"A shame he and Shunk remained so reclusive/hostile, as it would be interesting to have interviewed them."

Shunk was hostile yes. I actually corresponded with Hensley a few times, but he was only interested in being paid - which we weren't.

will g said...

Jim is now posting new updates at the top of the post, as seen with Update 11, in case anyone missed it, as I almost did.

My my Jim, the updates are getting shorter and shorter!

jim said...

"I actually corresponded with Hensley a few times, but he was only interested in being paid - which we weren't."

Interesting!

jim said...

Yeah I think the top will be much easier for everyone...

will g said...

Jim you should delete the Anonymous comment stamped APRIL 3, 2013 AT 7:31 PM. I'm sure that link is a virus.

jim said...

Done!

will g said...

Update 12:

Very good analysis of the significance of this previous incident. Talk about "pattern of conduct"! Too bad it couldn't be introduced at trial. John Ross WAS on the witness list at one time, as PC discusses here and here. But he was never called, and I think we can safely assume that's because this incident clearly would have been inadmissable, since the assailant was never identified.

It's interesting reading those old posts, because it seems that PC, and everyone else, first heard about the earlier attack only through a blog comment by "pagan," and then Renee chimed in confirming that H & J had told her about it so it must be true!

Now for some reason I had always thought of this incident as being more of a threat than an actual assault, meaning I thought someone (Joe) had held a knife to Ross's throat, but now I see "pagan," you, and the book actually refer to his throat being "cut" or "slit," so I guess it was much more than that, an actual attempted murder. Therefore ANOTHER lesson they learned from this is, if you want to kill someone by cutting their throat, you have to cut DEEP. Thus Kocis' near-beheading.

jim said...

Yeah, Elm used to go in this vein a lot on his blog, by saying constantly that Harlow and Joe lacked "motive" to commit a crime of passion and violence against Kocis, as they never knew him. Even after PC published the credit reports, which showed pretty conclusively they had a financial motive.

Elm was being somewhat inarticulate here, he was really talking about "predisposition" rather than "motive."

Before the Jon Ross incident was revealed, Elm actually had a valid point. But afterwards, no. This incident (along with the bullet holes, etc...) is the missing link, which shows they were indeed predisposed to commit this kind of gruesome murder.

Anonymous said...

Will & Jim:

If you look at the comments, Renee says that Joe (not Joe & Harlow)told her about the incident.

One of the things I always found fustrating is determining WHEN the Ross incident took place. The documents cited as proof do not mention Mr. Ross's name on them (nor Harlow or any of Joe's aliases). Only one of them has a date as to when it was created (which is the registration document in 2002).( And only part of that document has been reproduced, so one does not know if it is the original incorporation or an annual report which which as we know is filed each year as long as the corporation remains active.)

We have to remember that before Joe met Harlow, Joe was already established in Escort Business for a long period of time, and that Joe pursuaded Harlow to drop out of the Navy in December, 2001 presumably to become a full time escort in Joe's established business.

We can assume safely that Harlow met Joe sometime prior to then, but not that much earlier, since Harlow was involved with a Lieutenant prior to Joe. It was not until after the Lieutenant was transfered to the West Coast, that Harlow would been available to date others.

If the throat cutting took place earlier than when Harlow & Joe met, that should exonerate Harlow of the Ross incident. It could also show a predetermination on the part of Joe to commit violent acts, such as the bullet hole incident etc.

If we can exonerate Harlow of the Ross incident, then Elm was correct about Harlow be not being posed to commit violent acts.

As I said before, all signs point to Joe as the most likely slasher of Bryan.

This does not remove culpability from Harlow if he had prior knowledge of the events that took place in January of 2007, but it gives us a better picture of what occured.


will g said...

Yes you're right Anonymous (give yourself a screenname already!), I was mistaken, it was just Joe who told Renee about it. Stands to reason, since he's the one who did it. And yes, you're also correct about the squishy timeframe. I noticed there was no date or even year mentioned in the book. It COULD very well have taken place before Joe even met Harlow. However, I don't believe that bolsters your theory about Joe stabbing Bryan. It simply shows that it was Joe who was probably the driving force in the scheme to murder Kocis, based on the template of this earlier attack, as Jim said. Harlow was more than capable of carrying it out.

PC said...

"Joe was already established in Escort Business for a long period of time"

Yep. Joe worked for Elite Encounters... connect the dots...

PC said...

http://handjtrial.blogspot.com/2008/06/elite-encounters-harlow-and-joe.html

will g said...

Update 13:

"Despite acknowledging the need for a unsubstantial daily and weekly income just to keep their heads above water..."

I thought this excerpt you posted was just another example of sloppy copy-editing, but checked the book and it actually says "substantial," not "unsubstantial," which is important because "substantial" is something of an admission on Joe's part, and "unsubstantial" isn't even a word!

I'm also slightly confused about this supposed "acknowledgment." It seems to directly contradict what Joe says in the quoted part of the letter, that they "needed no outside help whatsoever." I'm sorry, but if you need to bring in a substantial daily and weekly amount to just keep your "head above water," then you are in dire financial straits.

This would seem to be a question for Andrew, more than PC: Where and when did Joe make this "acknowledgment" that's contradicted by everything else he says, which so infuriated Jim?? If that's a paraphrase of something Joe said in another part of the letter, it would be useful to see his own words.

(SORRY for the double deletion! I'm posting this at an ungodly hour, I just hope it's somewhat coherent.)

will g said...

(Oops, "unsubstantial" IS a word, though I think "insubstantial" is preferred.)

jim said...

Unsubstantial was a typing error on my part, yes. I'll fix it...

jim said...

And yes, the acknowledgment does directly contradict what Joe was saying. Which is what I've been saying for years! But for whatever reason they won't give up.

And what puzzles me more is this new we-killed-Kocis-because-he-was-there motive now advanced by Joe doesn't help his cause at all. Is Joe delusional? I have to wonder.

will g said...

Oh I see you've corrected it. (I thought maybe the Kindle edition has different typos than the print one.)

What I find particularly strange about Joe's supposed "acknowledgment" is the use of the phrase "to keep their heads above water," which implies their whole house of cards was on the brink of collapse/bankruptcy without the daily/weekly cash infusions. That WOULD be an acknowledgment of a financial motive for the murder!

Now I see this sentence, which directly preceeds the paragraph you quoted:

In Kerekes' own words, the couple had a spending habit that required them to bring in as much as $3,900 a day in income.

$117,000 a month is some "spending habit"!!!

Anonymous said...

Jim:

I remember your comments about Harlow needing to keep his legs in the air for too long a period. However, you based this on two wrong assumptions. First, the credit report was from May, 2007 not as of December 31, 2006. The second assumption was that the monthly figure needed to be paid would remain the same.

Let me explain the first. After the first of the year, Harlow was not working his ass off. (Pun intended). He and Joe went to Las Vegas and incurred significant debts (including Harlow losing his return plane ticket). Then came the murder and for several months He and Joe had no desire to work and were living in a motel. High expense and little to no income so
the debts started to pile on to what was already high level of debt. First interest on the debt and potentially late fees, and over limit fees as well. Additional costs were incurred with "Sassy", and other legal expenses and the coup de grace was the trip to San Diego to meet Grant and Sean. Even so they still had over $25,000 in cash which was seized by the Commonwealth of Virginia as fruits of a Rico operation. I think Harlow also had $5,000 in a bank account.

The second assumption was that the monthly debt would remain the same. However the largest monthly payment was to American Express which at one time required the payment in full of the monthly balance. Clearly, once that was paid in full, no further payments would be required to pay American Express unless new borrowing took place.

Even so, had they not been arrested and the cash seized, the cash on hand could have eliminated or reduced one or two of the borrowings. And prudent management of daily expenses would have allowed them to stay afloat until they were busted for prostitution.

On December 31, 2006 the situation was bad (primarily because of five vehicles on credit), but not only was Harlow putting out (and taking in big sums per customer) , they were also getting a share of the money that Andrew Shunk and Jason Hensley were bringing in, and potentially Joe could have serviced a client or two.

Also at this time, the Real Estate Market had not crashed, and their house had some equity in it. Though like you, I doubt it was ever worth the million dollars that Joe claimed.

Last, we all agree that Joe is crazy. You proved that point back in one of your posts. As with his claim of $120,000 a year in advertising, Joe believes that the more money and things one has and spends, the superior that person is. So he exaggerates his living expenses to impresses people.

Joe could easily have decided that he could make a lot of money if he could get Sean to appear in some of the Boybatter Films. Even today with no place to spend it, Joe is seeking money to tell his story. He did not need to be financially desparate to do something if he felt he could get a big payoff in the end. (Financial of course).

jim said...

The credit report was from May 2007 but it showed 30-day-late entries as early as February 2007. This means they began to run out of money in January, BEFORE the SWAT raid and right about the time of the murder.

This is what I wrote about the subject in a blog post here back in December 2007:

"Fact is, the first 30 day late notices above appear in February, meaning the due dates for those payments were in January…very probably before the murder, or certainly right about the time of it."

http://silenceofthechinchillas.blogspot.com/2007/12/motive-is-now-fully-revealed.html

This also is the source, I just realized, for this previously mentioned calculation:

"Just to give you all an idea of how bad this debt was, and that there was simply no way they had the income to manage this debt…if we assume $4000/mo was the payments on their two mortgages (a conservative estimate I derived from a mortgage calculator), the total *minimum* payments due for Harlow and Joe in May were:

Cars: $6,627.00
Credit Cards: $17,103.00
Mortgages: $4,000.00

Total = $27,730.00
Now, just for fun, lets see if Harlow could manage this debt on his escort income alone. If we assume Harlow charges $200/hr, that means that to simply keep up with just the *minimum* debt payments in May, Harlow would have to “work” for:

27,730 divided by 200 = 138.65 hours

…over a one month period. Thus for May, Harlow’s legs would have to be in the air on average of approximately 4.5 hours a day, day after day, for 31 consecutive days."

will g said...

Why not use "Kerekes' own words" saying they had a daily nut (pun intended) of $3,900? That means that at $200/hr, Harlow would need to have his legs in the air 19 hours a day.

Anonymous said...

While their situation in May was dire as shown by you, was it so bad in January, before the murder that they were desparate enough to want to commit murder. In other words the financial situation cannot justify the murder.

Also we do have to take cash on hand in May (before Virginia seized it)that could have paid off the American Express Card thus lowering Harlow's legs a bit if Joe chose to do so.

We also have no idea what Harlow was able to charge per hour. Most likely it would vary depending on what "services" were being provided. If some customers went only for "oral", Harlow might have been able to handle more than if a deeper relationship was involved. And while BoyBatter would not have produced much income, it still would provide some. I am not sure how much Joe could have provided on a monthly basis, more likely bringing in more more money from his scams than actual escorting.

Of course assuming that in May they did not get arrested for the murders, running a "boy-dello" or just jaywalking, and they started to retrench by returning some of the vehicles, selling off Chincilla Coats and Hot Tubs, cutting expenses and using their remaining cash to pay down their highest interest debts, they might have gotten the monthly debt service down to a more substainable level. However, I would agree that such a sensible act by Joe would be most unlikely.

They could also have Harlow declare bankruptcy by since most of the debt was in his name.

One thing though that you have not mentioned that does support your theory is the cost of operating in Virginia Beach. We know that someone on the Police Force was tipping them off, so a safe assumption is that the individual was either being paid off on a regular basis or was receiving services in trade. (I don't think an occaisional box of donuts would have been sufficient).

There is also the possibility that Geoff Harvard is partially right, and that regular "protection" money
had to be paid to local mob. These last two expenses would be difficult to cut back on.

jim said...

"While their situation in May was dire as shown by you, was it so bad in January, before the murder that they were desparate enough to want to commit murder [?]"

IMO yes. January was the critical month when they began to fall behind. This is when they would have made up their minds to take some drastic step.

They did not choose a Harlow bankruptcy as that step. Harlow declaring bankruptcy would have likely been the end of his cherished Dodge Viper that he was obsessed with, among other things. People have killed for lesser reasons.

PC said...

Chapter 4, pages 73 & 74:

"Kerekes continues to deny he and Cuadra faced any financial difficulties as 2007 dawned, but he told a different story on a secretly taped intercept of him and Cuadra explaining their financial woes to Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart."

Both of them admit to:

"We almost lost our home"... "The Viper, everything was in back payments"

Sounds like a financial issue to me, and one that they were well aware of, and as Jim correctly points out, it all started before the murder of Bryan Kocis.

PC said...

"We know that someone on the Police Force was tipping them off, so a safe assumption is that the individual was either being paid off on a regular basis or was receiving services in trade."

... and we know this how? Because Joe or Harlow said so? There was never any confirmation that this ever happened.

PC said...

"They did not choose a Harlow bankruptcy as that step. Harlow declaring bankruptcy would have likely been the end of his cherished Dodge Viper that he was obsessed with, among other things. People have killed for lesser reasons."

Correct. Joe already did that some years before, had Harlow filed too - they wouldn't have been able to rent a room at the local Motel 6.

Not to mention they would have lost every trophy near and dear to them - the Viper, Corvette, Honda, and house. Perish the thought!

Geoff Harvard said...

Anonymous misstates my theory. I believe that Kocis and Kerekes/Cuadra had an underworld creditor in common who wanted Kocis dead.

Anonymous said...

How does Joe and Harlow saying they almost lost the home, the Viper everything jive with how they wanted to pay Sean and Grant huge sums of money to appear in films together?

I read the Black Beach Tapes when posted, and I do not remember it then. Are there more secretly taped conversations that were never placed in evidence?

Anonymous said...

I meant that it was possible that Joe was paying "protection money" to the Mob in Virginia. This idea came from reading Geoff's Argument about the underworld credior wanting Kocis dead.

If they did need to "share" with "the boys" it would have added to their financial difficulties.

However, I think Joe was too arrogant to be paying protection money, and the organized crime may not opperate in that location.


If the mob wanted Kocis dead, they would have hired a professional hit man, who would have pop him off without the added details of 28 stab wounds, and arson. Just leave his dead body to be eventually found. Unsolved mystery.

will g said...

Anonymous, I think you misunderstood PC's comment. Joe and Harlow never said anything about losing their cars and home. PC said that's what would happen IF they declared bankruptcy. That's not a subject that was ever discussed on any tapes.

PC said...

"Are there more secretly taped conversations that were never placed in evidence?"

No.

jim said...

"How does Joe and Harlow saying they almost lost the home, the Viper everything jive with how they wanted to pay Sean and Grant huge sums of money to appear in films together?"

It doesn't, which brings up another excellent point: They were clearly lying to Sean and Grant.

Which of course Sean and Grant suspected all along (the post-murder Jody Wheeler interview Brent was not supposed to do described it as a deal "too good to be true").

It looks to me, and I've said this for years: That Sean and Grant knew Harlow and Joe were full of shit from the get go, fancy meal at Le Cirque notwithstanding. And that's the real reason they balked at moving forward with Harlow and Joe. The effect of the settlement agreement being a hindrance was somewhat exaggerated, and was used as a polite excuse. Politer than openly saying Harlow and Joe were full of shit to their faces, anyways.

Of course, H&J interpreted the polite excuse for the real excuse...and you can see how all the tiles fell after that.

Anonymous said...

Jim:

You are right about Grant seeing right through Joe at the Le Cirque.
Of course Joe calling the next day three times in one minute probably would have done the trick even if Grant had second thoughts.

The fact that the settlement with Bryan was agreed upon the next day, is proof that Grant felt that it was better to be with Bryan than Joe.

Grant and Joe were the business agents and bulk of the conversation at the restaurant was between them. The other two were playing "footsie" when Sean was not recurringly going to the bathroom. I think Harlow was a bit potted as well.

Anonymous said...

"settlement agreement with bryan" ... God only knows what the fuck that means, since there was Bryan Kocis the individual and then there were the two Cobra Video LLCs he created.

What should have been clear was that a settlement agreement to end the San Diego lawsuit was not going to stop Kocis since the Cobra Video LLC in Pa wasn't a party to the San Diego lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

There are now two anonymous in this thread. As the first anonymous, I meant by Bryan all of his companies as well as him in a general way. Even though as a legal matter the various LLCs and Bryan Kocis are considered separate individuals; as a practical matter for this discussion, we should be able to refer to Bryan and Cobra interchangeably.

However Anonymous 2, what do you mean by the settlement not stopping Kocis from doing what?

will g said...

Um, Anonymous 1, I already suggested you give yourself a screenname. Now, with TWO Anonymouses (Anonymi?) I repeat that suggestion.

jim said...

LOL

Anonymous said...

"Kocis eventually created and registered the Business Entity Name "CObra Video LL" with the State of Pennsylvania on September 20, 2002 ... In 2005, he also registered Cobra with the Corporations' Divison of the State of Delaware" - Cobra Killer

will g said...

Update 14:

You say it is "commonly believed" that Harlow entered the home after 7:50. Do we know what time the appointment was scheduled for? You say 6:35 would have been too early, so it sounds like we do know. Was he scheduled to be there at 7:00? If so, he would have been almost an hour late if he entered after 7:50, and it's hard to believe he would have been that tardy. It seems much more likely he would have been early, so I'm curious why it is/was a "common belief" that he didn't enter the home until after 7:50. Especially with, as you point out, the conclusive evidence on the tapes that he overheard those phone conversations. That "common belief" just doesn't make any sense.

will g said...

Oh of course, you explained that the "common belief" was based on the "white lie" about Harlow just arriving. Sorry, I'm a little slow. Still, I'd like to know what the scheduled time of Harlow's arrival was. Wasn't that explicitly stated in any email between "Danny" and Kocis? I couldn't find any mention of it in a quick skim of the chapter.

jim said...

I''d have to look the exact expected time of arrival up (it's somewhere here in the book I'm sure) but what really made the 7:50 arrival time such a common belief was the statement by Macias that Kocis told him his new model was at the door. This was, IIRC, one of the earlier details of the case revealed to the media early on, thus blogs have always tended to assume Macias was right and Harlow got there after 7:50.

Now, the rest of the Kocis phone call info was not released until MUCH later, well after the BBTs, and of course included the calls from Lee Bergeron. So, as a result, people's image of what transpired at the murder scene has always been a bit skewed. Harlow as actually in the same house (likely the same room) with Kocis much longer than most people realize.

jim said...

Got it, Chapter 1:

""Danny" answered quickly, complete with a smiley face, saying, "see you around 7:15 depending on traffic.""

will g said...

Aha, so 7:50 would have been over a half-hour late. Why in the world would he have kept Kocis waiting? Even if we accept his testimony that in his mind he was just there for an interview/audition (yeah right), being that unpunctual could piss Kocis off and scuttle the whole thing. There was no "traffic" in the short drive between the motel and Kocis' home that would have delayed him. And there were no more calls after 6:35 advising Kocis of such a late arrival. So common sense says he was there at least by 7:15, probably earlier.

jim said...

Yep, agreed.

Anonymous said...

Jim: "[Hensley's] claim that a U.S. Senator was among the clients for BoisRUs was never confirmed."

A pity. This gets back to all the Harlow "mystery client" conspiracy theories of old, such as the volume of the BBTs being turned down at a certain point while played in the court proceedings, as observed by Quickysrt".

Quicksrt here. I've checked in a couple of times here this year. I have long forgotten my passcode, and tried several combinations but failed to get into my blogger account. An account that was used solely for the purpose of "H/J ordeal" commentary.

Anyway, at the trial, not only were the tapes played back at an unnaturally & oddly low level, but there were discrepancies between the printed transcripts, and the tapes being played back. These discrepancies were enough to cause several of the jury reading along to become completely lost, and unable to follow both what they were hearing vs. what they were reading on the printed page.

This happened at the exact point where Harlow mentioned high end clients such as a Senator. I am going from memory of what is in the transcripts. And it has been years. But my main point, that the tapes contain material not transcribed in the hard copies given to the jury, and the Judge stated as much at the trial.

This was not a small glitch, it was enough of an issue that the entire listening session was halted. Attys. on both sides and Judge had a mini meeting to discuss this issue privately, and decided to instruct the jury to disregard anything on the tapes that was NOT in the transcribed version on paper.

I had kept an eye out locally for the Cobra Killer book, interested to know if this was mentioned (in the trail section of the book).

The book is not carried (nor has ever been in stock) at Barnes & Noble in Los Angeles, nor the County library, City Library, the Beverly Hills or West Hollywood libraries.

I am mainly interested in the trial section of the CC book (and perhaps the Joe interviews, and little else), partly because I attended a solid week of the proceedings, and got a fairly deep look into several of key people involved. That trial was very quiet, so much you could of heard a pin drop at any given time, yet emotions were RAGING nearly out of control, the silence was deafening.

Jeff

Anonymous said...

And meanwhile "patient" Joe was sitting in the cold car (it was January with light snow falling)for over an hour. No, Joe got into the house during this time, probably let in by Harlow during these phone calls. Harlow could have told Bryan,"I need to use the bathroom" and unlocked one of the outside doors on the way to or from the bathroom.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Also wasn't the last use of the purchased cell phone a call made 3 minutes or so before the fire trucks arrived to another cell phone used by Harlow and Joe?

This fact always stuck in my mind to indicate that at the time of the fire was set, the two were apart, one in the car and the other in the house. The conversation probably was to tell the person in the car to start the motor.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Hey Quicky!

jim said...

Welcome Quickysrt/Jeff!

"...interested to know if this was mentioned (in the trail section of the book)."

Nope, and I was kind of hoping it would be...but no.

One day we will find out who this alleged senator was. There were four people present at these BBT conversations, and two of them are not in prison, completely free to speak ...

cityboy said...

This is Justin Hensley, and to verify the statement on marriage, yes I did get married. June 23, 2012 was my wedding.

cityboy said...

This is Justin Hensley, and to verify the statement on marriage, yes I did get married. June 23, 2012 was my wedding.

jim said...

Welcome Mr. Hensley!

will g said...

Update 15:

To answer your question, no it's no surprise Joe attempted to finger Sean and Grant, though why he thinks ANYONE believes that BS after listening to the tapes is beyond me. He paints himself as an innocent bystander while the three others concoct the murder plot. This from the same guy who later tried to sell his story of being a prolific serial killer. Sigh.

jim said...

Yeah that's the other thing, just before this he repeats his version of events where he depicts himself as staying back in the Fox Ridge Inn the entire time. If he hadn't signed the hotel register, I'm sure he would have placed himself back in Norfolk.

This has been's Joe's story for a long time. He want's to put as much geographical distance between himself and the murder scene for some reason. Maybe he has dreams of drafting a clemency petition, using the "I was only the getaway driver" line of argument argument and hence his life sentence is too harsh? Remoteness from the scene might help that argument, that he was but a peripheral participant in the conspiracy.

The reality is, he was most likely in the car at the scene during the murder, as the timeline suggests it was two people who ransacked the house, took down all the smoke detectors, set the fire, and so on. Too much to do in such a limited space of time for one person.

One of the lamentable facts about this case is that we will never know the truth. There are only two people who possess the truth, and we can't read their minds...or believe a word they say.

Harlow and/or Joe could someday actually tell the truth, and it will be right there in front of our faces, but guess what? No one will ever know that it so happens by random chance to be the real truth, they've lied so many times nothing they say can be believed.

So, we will never really know the answers to the purely academic questions like who physically killed Kocis or who was where. All we can do is make educated deductions.

will g said...

Short of strapping the two of them to lie detectors, I'm afraid you're right, we'll never know the whole truth.

I should just add to my previous comment that I realize it's an exaggeration to say NOBODY believes Joe's BS about Sean and Grant, even after knowing what's on the tapes. Hi BB and Renee!

will g said...

Oh, and about your theory of Joe having a pipe dream of clemency? All I have to say is fat chance Joe. PA law says if you participated in a murder conspiracy, even "peripherally," you're just as guilty as if you pulled the trigger or did the stabbing. No governor would give his clemency petition the time of day. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Joe.

Anonymous said...

cityboy said...
This is Justin Hensley, and to verify the statement on marriage, yes I did get married. June 23, 2012 was my wedding.

-----

Yes you stated (twice) on the stand at the trial - if I recall correctly, during testimony that you were engaged to be married.

And you posted twice here as well. It is clearly a point you want to make. Got it!

Q

PC said...

Jim,

While I agree that anything coming out of Joe's mouth should be taken with a very small grain of salt, the interview was still helpful in being able to show just what type of person he really is.

I would also like to note that had we not interviewed one of the convicted killers for the book, we probably would have been lambasted for that as well.

PC said...

"will g said...
Oh, and about your theory of Joe having a pipe dream of clemency? All I have to say is fat chance Joe. PA law says if you participated in a murder conspiracy, even "peripherally," you're just as guilty as if you pulled the trigger or did the stabbing. No governor would give his clemency petition the time of day. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Joe.
"

Well said, and this is exactly why Harlow doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting a new trial.

will g said...

PC -

"While I agree that anything coming out of Joe's mouth should be taken with a very small grain of salt..."

I think you meant very LARGE grain of salt. Very many large grains of salt.

"I would also like to note that had we not interviewed one of the convicted killers for the book, we probably would have been lambasted for that as well."

Without speaking for Jim, I don't think he was lambasting you for interviewing Joe at all. Has anyone lambasted you for that? For me, it was important, no matter how much he obfuscated, to have him on the record admitting that he participated in killing Kocis. It's the first time he's done so publicly. The only public comments he had made before this was in the footage of him walking down the courthouse halls vehemently declaring his innocence. So the last thing I would expect is for anyone to be lambasting you for including it.

will g said...

Well I should add that he may have made public comments about it during his court appearance entering his guilty plea, but I've never seen a transcript of that. And usually the defendant only has to say "yes" to the judges' questions during those. He wouldn't even answer a reporter's questions about it here.

PC said...

"Without speaking for Jim, I don't think he was lambasting you for interviewing Joe at all. Has anyone lambasted you for that?"

Oh that wasn't a reference towards Jim, and my apologies if it came across that way. It was simply a jab at those that made comments (not necessarily here) that we never interviewed anyone.

jim said...

I totally agree the Joe letters and interviews are an invaluable insight into his character, yes, and in that limited sense are indeed worthwhile.

will g said...

Sorry PC, since you addressed the whole comment to Jim, I jumped to the conclusion that the "lambasting" part was referring to him.

I know some, especially on Amazon, falsely stated that you didn't interview anyone, but that's different than criticizing you FOR interviewing Joe. I haven't seen anybody doing that. Have they? I can imagine that some might conceivably object to Joe's accusations about Sean and Grant being published with no editorial comment, but that's ridiculous. Joe's statements, and character, speak for themselves.

Anonymous said...

If there were not conclusions to jump, willg would have an extra 16 hours a day to find something to do with himself.

Geoff Harvard said...

Mr. Hensley, at the time you say you were associated with Joe and Harlow, did you ever have occasion to have contact with a man you might now recognize as Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina? Are or were you acquainted with anyone who told you that he was in contact with Senator Graham? Were you ever contacted by anyone you suspected of being the agent of a foreign government or power concerning your contact with Senator Graham? To your knowledge was anyone of your acquaintance ever approached by such a foreign agent? Were you ever questioned by one of your seniors in the armed forces of the United States concerning your association with Joe and Harlow? At the time of your association with Joe and Harlow, were you a member of the Communist Party?

will g said...

I was wondering how long it would take for him to come trolling this year. And he didn't even bother to choose a new fake screenname for himself.

Geoff what are you going on about? I doubt Mr. Hensley will be coming back to face your inquisition.

Geoff Harvard said...

Just channeling Roy Cohn.

will g said...

Update 16:

Well it would surely be a lot simpler to varify your assertion about the "Kocisphere" if there was an index!

But right off the top of my head, DeWayneinSD comes to mind as one blog that is mentioned frequently. Does that qualify as the "Kocisphere"? I think it certainly did in its earliest incarnation, though I never saw it in those days. I think the book quotes DeWayne saying he started the blog to discuss the case, IIRC?

DeWayne? (I'll tweet him to try and get a response.)

will g said...

Oh, and I also find it hard to believe that the co-author's blog is never mentioned in the book. Though again, it's impossible for me to check it without a damn index.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

I am not sure what your question is Will.

will g said...

LOL. My question was if you started your blog to discuss the Kocis case, which I seem to remember being mentioned in the book. And while you're at it, can you remember any other "Kocisphere" blogs being mentioned? Jim brought this subject up in his latest update at the top of the post, in case you didn't see it.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Yes I did a scant two or three weeks after Elm as I recall Jason Sechrest was shouting anyone PLEASE take this off my hands. His site was getting blown up with comments.

By April with Jim and then PC's blog getting started it became apparent Elm and I were too partisan. Certainly by the time of the Blacks Beach taping I was already thinking ahead to a different direction.

I do not recall anyone using the term Kocisphere blogs until after we had a good half dozen going. I think that was Jim who coined the term? I know I always referred to the Cobrasphere or Cobra Wars back in 2006

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Damn I need to borrow back my copy of the book..a certain friend is on his third re-read ugh ;-p

And yes his name is Jim Will ;-p

(NOT Chinchilla Jim)

will g said...

Oh of course, Jason Sechrest's is another blog that gets name-checked in the book. Of course that wasn't a blog devoted to the case. But Jim seems to think the entire online community that was discussing the case as it was unfolding was neglected in the book, if I get his point correctly.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

That was not my impression of the book at all. Indeed I mentioned in my review I was a little embarrassed by my own "Kocis blogging in retrospect"

I believe Peter and I in a phone conversation about the "Kocisphere" blogs and online activity agreed we all had a tendency to overstate the role and importance of the online discussion to the actual investigation.

My take the book illustrates just how rapidly PA Police zeroed in on Prime Suspects Joe and Harlow when we at the time thought the investigation was going no where fast and some Blogger was going to "Crack this case"

We all had that bout of blogging hubris ;-)

If anything the online activity was a big fat distraction to PA Police nothing more.

Overstating to call it a distraction? Or is it looking back over 6 years and seeing it all from a distance.

will g said...

That kind of reminds of the recent phenomenon of "online sleuthing" in the Boston bombing, which in the end wound up being not only a distraction but really hurt innocent people.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

I was thinking the same yet Boston investigators did not have any names that's why they posted the photos and video and THEN the avalanche hit.

PA Police had Joe and Harlows names by Friday.

What they needed that first week were some of the other connections which did indeed come from the Blogs i.e. The Vegas Dinner etc

jim said...

"I think that was Jim who coined the term?"

Correct.

jim said...

It's late and I'll have more to say on this tomorrow. I've had several months to crystallize my thoughts on the subject.

First, let me note that I don't know what, if any, effect the Kocisphere had on the investigation, whether any valuable leads developed from, inspiration drawn from it, etc. The book doesn't seem to ask the question of Melnick or other law enforcement interviewed for the book. And frankly, if they were, I'd be a bit surprised if they admitted amateurs where somehow helpful to them in any way. That's just human nature. Hubris is not something limited to bloggers.

Second, the paragraphs after the one at the start of the chapter go into one probable effect the Kocisphere did have, and that was to motivate Sean and Grant to participate in the dangerous wiretap, which their attorneys recommended against, in order to clear their name in the arena of public opinion. I'd say that's most likely the case.

And third, there was at least one other reason why people considered the Kocisphere important, vitally important in fact, which the book mentions a few times but does not draw the connection. Harlow and Joe were desperate for legal funds after their arrest, and needed donations. And donations would only flow in if the public generally believed that they were "wrongly accused."

And here, the Kocisphere became a critical battleground. You can tell by the intensity Harlow and Joe went at it. starting their own blogs. Barry Taylor's private investigator Sassy on many occasions was enlisted to go online, often into the lion's den of unfriendly blogs (and for this, even I have to give her props), to spread the Harlow and Joe version of events. And when the blogs were not receptive to their message, they enlisted a filmmaker to reach a non-blog audience on a national cable network via a propaganda film.

And it wasn't just money they were after in these efforts, they wanted simply the moral support too of positive public opinion too. Later in the book it tells how Harlow strategized (unsuccessfully) to have the court room back with people wearing "Free Harlow" t-shirts.

So, to recap, convincing the public of their wrongful accusedness was of vital importance to them, evidenced in part by the demonstrably VAST amount amount of effort they spent on it. And like I said, CRITICAL battleground for the hearts minds of the general public in this respect was the Kocisphere.

So, it just wan't something that could be discounted.

And I have even more to say on this, which I'll get to tomorrow.

jim said...

And fourth, if you want to talk about getting insights into the character of Harlow and Joe, just look at their Kocisphere postings, in the days prior to their arrest:

http://silenceofthechinchillas.blogspot.com/2008/01/markwwwboisruscom-complete-and.html

...and AFTER the SWAT raid, while they were cowering in Florida!

And the thing that was so amazing about these "mark" posts was, besides the brazen chutzpah of them all...was that they WORKED. Almost everyone back accepted what "mark" was saying gullibly and uncritically.

All this stuff about Harlow being at the GAYVNs in cool sneakers, and not "on the run" as the Jody Wheeler piece claimed, practically everyone cited this as PROOF that Harlow was not "on the run." And therefore they were innocent/framed. And therefore Brent and Grant did it. Etc.

Looking back on this, it's absolutely amazing, the capacity of people to believe what they want to believe, when that belief suits their world view.

And I think now, possibly, the success Harlow and Joe had with these postings back then emboldened them to take their cases to trial. If they could have easily fooled so many people with these tales of high living and travelling to GAYVNs (which actually hiding in a condo in Florida), how hard could it be to fool a jury?

So yeah, all of this Kocisphere activity is revelatory not only to their character, but something even more critical: their mindset. So, it's just sad IMO that all this ended up on the cutting room floor.

jim said...

Oh and one more point I can't resist...there are STILL people out there who belief Harlow went to the GAYVNs in San Francisco, while hiding out in Florida.

There was a thread on The Sword a few months back, that for some reason was talking about Harlow (sorry can't recall which one) and some guy commented that Harlow was seen at the GAYVNs after the murder...

FALSE! FALSE! I cried at my computer screen. It took me superhuman effort not to don my Chinchilla cape, log in, swoop in and read this guy.

But it just shows how ASTONISHINGLY successful Harlow and Joe were back then at lying. EVEN TODAY people still believe that GAYVN bullcrap. Amazing.

jim said...

And I have still more to say later...

will g said...

"It took me superhuman effort not to don my Chinchilla cape, log in, swoop in and read this guy."

Why didn't you for heaven's sake?? I wish you could remember what thread that appeared on, I'd like to see it. Not only is it very odd that Harlow was being discussed at all on The Sword, but even odder is that someone would try and dredge up this ancient GayVN story to, what, prove his innocence? Must be either John Roecker, Jason Ridge, or Harlow on his smartphone.

(BTW after rereading the comments I posted in the wee hours this morning, I'd just like to say I DO know how to spell "verify.")

PC said...

Chapter 6, paragraph 4:

"Blogosphere speculation aside, police had long ago satisfied themselves that Lockhart and Roy had nothing to do with Kocis' murder and instead focused their entire attention on the men from Virginia Beach"

Due to this, we felt it really wasn't necessary to cover the 'blogger' subject much, which if we had, it probably would have became an entire chapter of its own.

I'll also note that even though the book was published last year, it was written well before then, at a time when most people didn't even know what a blog was, or trust what they said.

My how times have changed.

Anonymous said...

David Lupas was the Luzerne County DA at the time Kocis was killed. We know now that his father Anthony Lupas was at the time operating a multi-million dollar ponzi scheme. Anthony Lupas gave son David Lupas' campaign for Judge $200,000 from that ponzi scheme.

will g said...

"...at a time when most people didn't even know what a blog was, or trust what they said."

While I would probably agree with the second point PC, I don't think I would with the first. Wikipedia says blogging had became "mainstream" by 2004.

jim said...

"...which if we had, it probably would have became an entire chapter of its own."

Probably yes. Which leads to my fifth and last point, that the Kocisphere was a totally unique vantage point from which to view the case unfold.

I can cite numerous examples but I'll just go with one: The day Joe walked into the court room, and got on the witness stand.

I mean, THIS was it. For months if not YEARS we had been promised that once Harlow took his case to court, he'd finally reveal carefully hoarded evidence that would set him free. 'Wait until trial' we are all told and 'then you'll see.'

Well turns out that big surprise we'd been promised was Joe. He was being called by the defence.

So, the entire Kocisphere is riveted, the moment of truth has arrived, Harlowites are in a frenzy of anticipation, and then what happens is:

http://silenceofthechinchillas.blogspot.com/2009/03/omfg.html

Waaa waaaaaa!

I mean, I still look back at this moment today, and I think to myself, holy crap. THIS was it. This was the climax of the whole saga, this was the moment Gollum fell in the volcano. And just to have experienced it, as it was happening, as a blogger...wow. I still get a tingle up my spine thinking about it right now!

Now lets see how the book covers it.

So, fast forward to the last section of Chapter 10, The uncooperative witness, and, lets say you're a reader completely unfamiliar with the Kocisphere. So, you read this section, and it tells you the move "surprised most observers" and was considered "bizzare" and "interesting" and then finished up with some Joe interview quotes.

So, the uninitiated reader at this point is probably thinking 'huh, that is odd and interesting' and moves on, without another thought, to Chapter 11.

In other words, by removing the context of the Kocisphere, the moment's been drained of practically all of it's significance and drama. In this book, the incident is just another section with a subheader.

Which brings me to my conclusion...I am actually glad the book went the way it did. Reading the same version of events, removed from the context of the Kocisphere, has made me realize how important that context was.

You know, I used to bitch about Harlow and Joe not just pleading guilty after they got arrested, and making me blog about them for TWO MORE YEARS. I don't feel so bad about that anymore, as the book has kind of reminded me of just how entertaining that blogging experience was, most of the time.

Let's face it guys, we had the best seats in the house for this. We experienced things and thoughts and emotions people who merely read the book never will. And for that realization, I am grateful.

will g said...

While you bring up many interesting points about the history of the Kocisphere Jim (BTW I think you should add a ™ symbol to that since it IS your term), I think I'm going to have to side with PC on this, if not quite for the same reasons. First, I don't think the online activity surrounding the case was as badly neglected as you posited in your post. In addition to the examples I already mentioned, there is also the inevitable mention of the message boards at Juicygoo (I think that's what it was called?), which is where Grant gave this book its title. And let us not forget that H & J did their own blogging, or rather Renee did it for them, which the book also covers.

I'm just not sure what any more detailed discussion about it would really add to the reader's understanding of the case. Yes, it might have been interesting if a question about it had been posed to the LE interviewees. I do think the fact that so many blogs sprung up around this case is something that perhaps deserved a paragraph somewhere. It was a pretty unique phenomenon for its time. But beyond that, I don't see it adding much of substance to the book.

will g said...

As usual, an addendum: The "mark@www.boisrus.com" posts might have deserved some coverage, as you suggest, they would make for some amusing reading. But only if Joe had confirmed to Andrew that it was indeed him writing those posts. He would need to put it on the record.

will g said...

And the same goes for "Sassy," unless she goes on the record confirming that it's her, those posts could be someone else's sockpuppet, rather than what they were purported to be. That's the problem with this whole subject of the online PR campaign that was waged on H & J's behalf, and all online postings in general. You can never really be sure who's talking.

Sorry for deletion, and I'm done now!

PC said...

"In other words, by removing the context of the Kocisphere, the moment's been drained of practically all of it's significance and drama. In this book, the incident is just another section with a subheader."

In reality, the only significance is that it was mostly drama - quite opinionated, but very little fact for the most part.

Thane said...

Hello friends!

Jim, I must thank you for this blog. It is the best idea that any of us had regarding this entire sorry business.

Rea Martin I am not so sure was a minor Quisling. She was out hunting game. Money was her motivator, and she did not care how it came into her hands.

For me there are open questions and no easy answers. One of these is Wagner's involvement prior to his boss' death and what he might have been up to pretty up Kocis' reputation. No matter how that guy is sliced and diced for discussion he had a virtual thorn in his ass regarding Sean. He wanted that guy to suffer. Too bad whatever he had in mind circled the drain.

Kerekes comes across as being much more practical than Cuadra in terms of negotiating with the authorities for a plea. I am not so sure Cuadra ever seriously tried to discuss sentencing terms prior to the trial at all.

Everything for the murdering duo came down to the La Cirque dinner meeting, excepting Sean and Grant weren't buying the sales pitch. Sean and Grant came as close as anyone would ever hope not to come in being made conspirators though they had no part in Kocis' demise other than having to deal with him in civil court and fulfilling Sean's contract obligations.

Perhaps Jim will run his timeline of the pre-murder, murder, and post-murder. I think his was the best take on what happened, notwithstanding, PC's tome which is loaded with typos and redundancies that harm his narrative.

Only two questions. Cuadra had appealed his conviction. Has that appeal been heard? Lastly, how is Cuadra holding up in prison?

Glad to interact with all of you again.

will g said...

In case anyone is confused, "Thane" is better known as our old friend Rob. Just in case the Robert Wagner reference didn't give it away...

Hi Rob, I mean Thane. Harlow's appeals have all been exhausted, now he only has some kind of petition that he's awaiting a hearing on that will also be rejected.

Thane said...

Will--

How are you? Actually, for this Thane account, it's the only one I have kept.

Not to quibble over Wagner so much but one of the bloggers here mentioned Wagner's work with Kocis, more than run of the mill. He's gone into the shadows.

I think it's interesting that one chapter of the book noted that Kocis had handguns stashed throughout his house on the first floor. No wonder Sean, when he lived there the one summer, watched for an opportunity to leave and took that opportunity when he could.
Does anyone know the status of Cuadra's appeal?

Thane said...

Sorry Will. Not the appeal. Cuadra's petition. Is it up to be heard soon?

will g said...

I'm fine thanks, and I just answered your question about the appeals! "Exhausted" means his appeals have all been heard, all the way up to the PA Supreme Court, and they've been soundly rejected. He has no more appeals. Now he's filed a petition that will get a (very short) hearing in May. You can read the petition here.

will g said...

Sorry Rob, I was typing my post when you posted clarifying your question

Thane said...

Will--

No problem. Thanks for the heads up on the Cuadra petition.

You mentioned the PA Supreme Court. Do you think Cuadra will have his attorney go through the federal appellate system? He would be prolonging the final outcome if that is his aim.

will g said...

I'm no expert, but I believe to appeal in the federal courts, there has to be some kind of constitutional issue at stake, and I don't see any in his case. There's been no indication that a federal appeal is being considered, but I wouldn't put it past him. I suppose it also hinges on whether the sugar daddy who is paying for all this would keep shelling out.

Thane said...

Any ideas on who that sugar daddy long legs might be?

Wouldn't that be a kick if someone close was that sugar daddy!

will g said...

Our best guesses were his former client Mitch Halford or John Roecker.

Thane said...

Interesting comment several posts up.

The logic in the reply to that post was a cop on the take supplied Joe and Harlow with information. The reply was no proof, therefore, did not happen. I thought this blog let us explore the events and conundrums that others would not take on.

The reply fails because the author ignores the possibility of a cop on the take. Then, there is the side matter of the model Mason Banks. He was the son of a police officer, and no his dad was not on the take, but he had his son try to find out who that might be as well as other information to make up the RICO case.

Jim is supplying the rest of the story, a fuller version of the glossed over items.

Thane said...

I must agree with Jim without understanding the blogger environment, the Joe-Harlow mindset and resolve to murder Kocis makes little sense, except to Joe and Harlow.

I do remember Elm pushing the wait til Harlow gets his day in court arguments to show his lack of guilt in this murder.

Then, one must keep in mind the level of Kocis' narcissism and paranoia. Dewayne detailed a gun waving episode involving a delivery man. This was pooh-poohed, but now vindicates Dewayne in light of the books account that many handguns were found stashed around the first floor of the Kocis burned out porn palace.

Facts are what they are and may be inconvenient truths. Wishing those inconvenient gone does not make them irrelevant.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 237   Newer› Newest»