Update 22: Finishing up Chapter 8, what sticks in my mind most, thanks to recent commentary here, is the info on what exactly got impounded due to RICO.
In "Paying for a defense" we have Harlow on his blog opining that "The dollar amount to defend a capital case is over $250,000 combined" which I take to mean $125,000 for each Harlow and Joe. Which sounds about right, and I'm sure Harlow was well and truly informed by his legal team at the time as to that estimate.
Fred Kerekes, OTOH, puts the figure he needed to raise at "$150,000 for my son and Harlow (Cuadra)." So, we can put the total somewhere in that $150,000 to $250,000 range and be on pretty safe ground here.
So, in an alternate universe where RICO didn't exist, would H&J's legal funding problems been equally nonexistent? Turns out not quite.
As we know, VA didn't even bother with the house, it was so underwater it might as well have been nicknamed Jacques Cousteau. The cars they seized initially but ended up "sent back to the lenders" because they too had no equity. That leaves a bunch of personal belongings of undetermined value (computers, video cameras, a stereo, an iPod, some jewelry, a Louis Vuitton back, racing tire rims and and accessories) and $26,585.25 in cash.
I don't know what all the RICOed personal stuff was worth (based on this blog's namesake event, the auction of the infamous Chinchilla coat, I'd have to imagine it would not have been a very significant amount ... lets say, $5000 or so?) which leaves the only real RICO loss being that wad of cash, $26,585.25. In other words, barely 10% to 15% of what they needed for a paid defense.
In this alternate universe, Barry Taylor would have been in position and first in line to suck up this $32,000 or so. There are indications in the book he was owed quite a lot of money at the time of the arrest, so much of it would not have gone to any future capital defense by him, but rather, to pay off the billable hours already racked up.
(By the way, in a slightly earlier section "Trashing the evidence" can you guess who's one of the biggest whiners about the RICO seizures? Yep, Barry Taylor)
Bottom line, it can't be said RICO was this vast conspiracy to deny H&J they money to mount a paid defense. Because, even without RICO, they would not have had the cash to mount a paid defense. Not even close.
Update 21: The rest of Chapter 8, about the period they were "on the run" sure brought back memories.
Let me tell you what was going on in the Kocisphere back then. Back then, as you know, I was practically the lone voice in the wilderness pointing out the Harlow and Joe MUST have been involved in committing the murder. Practically everyone else wanted to point the finger and speculate at Sean and Grant, and didn't want to listen to logic that pointed in a different direction.
Also keep in mind, neither the SWAT raid nor the fact that Harlow and Joe had gone into hiding was public knowledge at this point. No news stories reported the SWAT raid right after it happened, so, no one knew that the police had basically eliminated Sean and Grant as suspects and were now focusing like a laser beam on Harlow and Joe. Which was great for all the Brent-did-it conspiracists.
At some point, I think, Sean got tired of all the excess suspicion on him. Police had kept he and Grant informed to some degree about the course of the investigation, so, he KNEW they were in reality they were cowering and hiding somewhere, after the SWAT raid.
So, Sean goes to his journalist friend Jody Wheeler and does an "interview" that was really not supposed to be one. It's a little fuzzy on whether what he told Wheeler was supposed to be off the record or not, but IMO the most likely scenario was that Sean wanted to leak truthful information to the Kocisphere about the VERY REAL investigation of Harlow and Joe, and this was the way he went about it.
The article "Two Pair" by Wheeler came out, and naturally it blew up the Kocisphere. Especially with it's quote of Sean saying that Harlow and Joe were currently "on the run."
And it was at this point that Joe began posting on the Kocisphere, under his "Mark" persona, in order to counter the TRUTH that they were indeed "on the run."
In particular:
"sanfransam said... anyone else see harlow @ the gay awards?
i did :)
He looked cute, and did not look like he was too worried about anything. Harlow did have on a sweet pair of nike dunks with his suit. maybe the sneakers where in case he had to make a run for it?
February 25, 8:37 AM
---Anonymous said... Hi this is Mark again from www.boisrus.com here just confirming I sent a studly entorage to san fran (Harlow and Calvin) for gayvn just to mingle and to set alarms silent. Harlow isnt on the run and actually has been filming in va beach for my new update to boybatter today with he and mason. :-)Trent & Harlow have been escorting here ever since that night in question and before.Im sorry I cant respond to any questions regarding investigations, my long time litigation lawyer says NObut thanks for your warm welcome to this blog..that was suprising as I DO realize porn & escorting are two very different worlds.MarkAnd that folks, is ALL IT TOOK. INSTANTLY, this Harlow-was-at-the-GAYVNs story was adopted by the majority of folks in the Kocisphere AS THE GOSPEL TRUTH. That's all it took! A fake "sanfransam" Yahoo email account, and a statement by "Mark."
February 25, 2007 9:00 AM"
And STILL TODAY, there was that idiot who posted a comment on the Sword a few months back about how Harlow was at the GAYVNs after the murder! That shows how amazingly effective those two posts above were. My brain still explodes thinking about this today! It's incredible how gullible people can be when they want to be!
And what happened to Sean at this point, you may wonder? Sean, who took a risk and provided the Kocishere with the first REAL information about the course of the murder investigation?
Oh. My. God. He was CRUCIFIED. "That lying TOXIC TWINK, Harlow and Joe are NOT on the run, LOL! They were at the GAYVNs, see? Someone even noticed his nice shoes! OBVIOUSLY, this LIE proves BRENT is a MURDERER!" Etc etc etc.
Oh, you should have seen the comments. Sean was literally crucified. And for what? Giving us all what we so desperately craved: real and truthful information about what was going on in the murder investigation.
To this day, I'm still in amazement about how when the Kocisphere was presented with both the truth and a lie, the degree to which the lie was eagerly cherished and adopted, and the truth was villified and denigrated...I am just astounded. To this day!
This is stuff I kinda wish was in the book. There are life lessons here, about the capacity of people to be completely blind to the nature of truth and lies in order comport them to one's own preconceived world views, that are IMO of immense value and should be put on record here.
Update 20: "[Harlow and Joe, while they were hiding out in Miami after the SWAT raid but before the arrest] also conducted an on-camera interview with TV producers from MTV's Real Life program to tell their side of the story, but the segment never aired."
Will it ever air? Has anyone outside MTV actually seen this? Was it involved in the trial in any way?
Were both of them interviewed, together?
Seems to me some valuable insight into the power dynamic between the two would be revealed in this video, and how they responded to the interviewer.
Any chance it will ever been seen by the public? It keeps coming up from time to time (I think Joe mentioned it in one of his letters) and it's like this mysterious thing that gets mentioned but no one has ever really seen or heard it.
Update 19: On to Chapter 8. "In the short time they did spend together, Higgins came away unimpressed with Cuadra. "He is a male prostitute, and he comes across as soft, by the way he speaks and his mannerisms, but I can see right through that," Higgins said. ... "He acts like that to get people to do what he wants, to manipulate people."
The footnote indicates the source of this observation is "Higgins interview with AES" making this a new fact revealed in the book, and a quite interesting one coming from someone who's entire professional career is based on making these sorts of profiling character observations.
Update 18: Chapter 7: "...Kocis approached his friend Samuel Hall, a Milwalkee-based entertainment lawyer who had befriended Kocis earlier in 2005."
What's interesting to me about this is that this I think the first time I've heard of this guy (or maybe I did, but can't remember?).
In any case, what we get in this section is some very interesting details from Mr. Hall about the Cobra settlement. And not just the terms of the settlement, but the state of mind of the parties before, during and right after the settlement talks in Vegas.
I notice the source for all this is the Cuadra Trial Transcript, so, I gather Hall was called as a witness, and was asked about all this by either the prosecution or the defense.
The Le Cirque dinner is covered at the end of the chapter as well. The only detail I think should have been included was the phone conversation between Joe and Grant, after Vegas but before the murder, with Joe once again nagging to begin filming, and Grant telling them they still weren't ready yet due to the recently signed settlement.
I'm trying to remember the exact details of this call, and what date it took place (it's probably written on my blog here, but it'll take a while to dig up), but as I recall it was triggered in part due to the premature announcement on Boybatter of a new partnership with Brent Corrigan , etc etc etc. which Grant was not pleased with.
It is my belief that it was this phone call that was the final trigger in the decision by Harlow and Joe to murder Bryan Kocis.
[Edit: I found it!
http://silenceofthechinchillas.blogspot.com/2009/01/hang-up-call.html
"On the morning of Tuesday, January 16, Joe and Harlow called Sean, angry that Sean had not posted an announcement of their plans on his blog. Grant was furious at their impatience. “I’m in the middle of the settlement, and I had gone to great lengths to explain our situation, and they’re all pissed off because we don’t have a blog post on? Who the fuck do they think they are? I called them and said, ‘We’ve got a lot to do. You’re calling Sean and harassing him.’ Joe starts getting angry with me, saying wild things, threatening me that if we don’t ‘put up a post,’ the deal is off. I said, ‘If you don’t understand us, leave us the fuck alone.’ And I told Sean, ‘Screw those guys. Don’t talk to them anymore.’ That was it.”"]
Update 17: I just finished up Chapter 6, which is an *excellent* synopsis of what went down at the Crab Catcher and on Black's Beach. A really fine job in describing how Harlow and Joe for all intents and purposes confessed to murder on tape, the audience at this point now knows the police investigation has run it's course, and it's only a matter of time before the jaws of the trap snap shut...and they swoop in for the arrest! The anticipation is palpable, how will it go down? This missed them once during the SWAT raid, will Harlow and Joe manage to wriggle away again? Will there be violence or bloodshed? The reader eagerly turns the page to Chapter 7...
...And begins to read more of the past history of Sean Lockhart.
This is, I think, the biggest problem with the book, one that Will has remarked on already, and many book reviewers have noted as well, and that is the unfortunate over-tendency to of the book to tell the story in a non-chronological fashion. With this transition from Chapter 6 to 7 being the most jarring example of this. In fact, 7 goes on to simply repeat much of what's already been covered in Chapter 3 (although in greater detail).
Now, I don't know if any plans are in the works for a 2nd edition, but if there are, I think an untangling of the various sections and chapters would be a worthwhile endeavor. I have had some months to ponder this problem, and for it's worth, I throw my ideas out for fixing here. They are suggestions, obviously, so take from them what you will (if anything):
Chapter 1: The murder scene, unchanged from the book.
Chapter 2: Life of Kocis, which would be the current Chapter 2, plus much of current Chapter 3 dealing with the history of Cobra Video all the way until Bryan sees Sean on webcam for the very first time, then STOP.
Chapter 3: Life of Sean, childhood through meeting Kocis (where Ch 2 stopped), then continuing on with much of what's in Chapters 3 and 7 (the Cobra Wars), all the way to the climactic settlement signing in Vegas, then STOP. "But there was another fateful meeting Sean and Grant had scheduled during that weekend in Las Vegas, at the world famous Le Cirque in the Bellagio Hotel..."
Chapter 4: Life of Harlow and Joe, the rise and fall of their empire, all the way to the Le Cirque dinner, then STOP. We are now caught up to where we left off in 3, AND we have now introduced all the main characters, so, no more backtracking! It's all forward narrative from this chapter and onwards!
Chapter 5: Harlow and Joe do the murder (ie, current Chapter 5).
Chapter 6: Shock and Awe in San Diego (current Chapter 6) etc etc etc, except now we can dispense entirely with the current Chapter 7 (which was merged into 3 and 4). So, the current Chapter 8 becomes 7, and so on and so forth!
So, FWIW, that's my fix suggestion. We only time-shift 3 times (in the first three chapters), and that out of necessity when each new major character groups are introduced. From Chapter 4 and onwards we are full speed ahead.
166 comments:
The reader eagerly turns the page to Chapter 7...
...And begins to read more of the past history of Sean Lockhart.
And it couldn't be any more awkwardly, frustratingly abrupt, with the opening sentence of Chapter 7 being:
"Sean Paul William Lockhart was born on October 31, 1986."
Oy vey! Good thing you can't get whiplash from reading a book, or Magnus would be knee-deep in lawsuits.
I'll be back later...
Yes, it's clear that the major structural problem in the book involves the placement of Chapter 7, and your solutions seem to work. As I recall, when I was reading it, the main problem I had with it was the repitition, moreso even than the interruption of the narrative momentum.
I'm afraid the idea of it being fixed in a subsequent printing, which would involve a lot of rewriting, is a pipe dream. That just doesn't ever happen. Even the idea of adding a table of contents and index in the next printing, which I had suggested on Amazon, is a long shot.
I gave the book 5 stars on Amazon despite the obvious problems because I didn't want to penalize the authors for them. All of this is the publisher's responsibility, and I was also inclined to cut them some slack, Magnus being a very small startup with probably a skeleton staff, if any staff at all. My impression is that it's pretty much a one-man operation.
Jim and Will,
I totally agree that the sequence of the book could have been better - a proper editor should have caught that.
Andrew and I submitted both a table of contents and an index - to which we where told they weren't needed.
Will there be a second edition? More than likely yes. I'll leave it at that for now.
because there was so much interest in the first edition?
"Will there be a second edition? More than likely yes. I'll leave it at that for now."
W00t!
Jim I just wanted to say that I didn't give your re-arrangement/untangling of the book's chronology enough credit earlier, you did solve not only the Chapter 7 issue but the larger issue of the somewhat haphazard organization of the entire first half. You actually did the work that a competent book editor should have done when handed the raw manuscript. It's a little mystifying why such a relatively straightforward problem like this wasn't addressed, and as I said before I'm sure it's too late to address it now for a second printing. But you could have a second career as an editor (not that I know what your first one is lol.)
Like I said, I've had months to mull and ponder it.
Albert here,
The conflict between Sean and Bryan began long before the “I am the boss.” e-mail. Sean described the deterioration of the relationship in ‘A Sirens Tale.’ Sean had only spent two weekends filming for Bryan before he turned 18 and decided to get his star tattoo. Those two weekends resulted in four movies and a lot of money for Bryan. The tattoo effectively ended that income stream. Not completely but it spelled the limits of future promotion and Bryan knew that well.
This crowd does not need a repetition of what transpired before and after the tattoo. The emails are not really significant to the murder story. They may reveal the personal interaction and personalities of Sean and Bryan at that time but that is another story. Maybe Sean will cover that period in his book if ever completed.
As Sean’s story is an ongoing one, I am sure it is a difficult book to complete.
Update 18:
The only mention of attorney Samuel Hall I could find anywhere online is here in the 5:15 PM entry.
It was interesting, in that old blog post you linked, to see that excerpt from the Crab Catcher tapes in which Joe explains how they were up to their ears in debt and on the brink of bankruptcy, considering that in the previous thread someone was trying to make the case that their finances weren't really in such bad shape.
Oh, and about that phone call you think should have been included in Chapter 7, I'm not sure that would necessarily be the right place for it, since the chapter only covers the dinner itself and not the aftermath. It would seem to belong in a later chapter. Are we sure it doesn't get mentioned later on? I do agree that it should be.
It might be, I'm not sure. I know Ch 8 leads off with a little trip by Harlow and Joe to Boston Market, so I was assuming no...but it may be tucked away elsewhere.
Note that while Harlow and Joe may have called Sean at the begining of the paragraph, it is Joe who gets angry with Grant. How much was Harlow actually involved in this conversation? And if not, what is the revelence of this conversation to Harlow's trial except to expose the nature of Joe's personality?
Anonymous One.
I hadn't thought about it before, but according to this Out magazine quote it would seem both Harlow and Joe were on the line for the "hang up call." And we know that Joe got pushy as he had in Vegas, and Grant finally got fed up with them and hung up on them both.
The significance of the conversation is pretty obvious. This was the last communication between Grant and H&J before the murder. Grant said they could not start filming immediately b/c of the settlement with Kocis. He also said they would NOT be trumpeting any partnership with Boybatter on their blogs and web sites...in essence making H&J look like fools b/c they had already jumped the gun and trumpeted that non-fact on Boybatter, in a desperate attempt to drum up new memberships.
Keep in mind at this point the car payments for January are overdue (assuming they were due early in the month).
Days later H&J would remove what appeared to them to be the roadblock to hanging on to their precious vehicles, and kill Kocis.
So, we see the motive here in action. I think it's fair to say that in the minutes right after Grant hung the phone up on them, was when Harlow and Joe both consulted one another, and out of frustration made up their minds to commit murder.
Boybatter was using and presumably paying the models that appeared in boybatter videos. Also, Boybatter had a lawyer.
Jim:
How do you know that the car payments were late for January? When the cars were eventually repossessed in June(?) there might have been a payment record filed with the court by the creditors seeking replevin, but I have not seen such documents published so far.
The credit report that showed the situation in May is not a reliable source of exact information. Credit reporting agencies have to make corrections all the time.
Anonymous one
Yogi Berra Quotes. 1. Never answer an anonymous letter.
Anonymous One, I don't know about a specific car payment, but the best source about their situation is Joe himself at the Crab Catcher:
"It's been horrible, we act like we have all this, we don't ya know we cash advanced everything, ya know? We're In so much debt, we're probably gonna have to do bankruptcy."
And Anonymous One, I'm not quite sure why Jim says they missed January payments, but the credit report quoted in that linked post says they missed two February payments.
DAIMLERCHRYS: 30 days late for February
BMW FIN SVC: 30 days late for February
Credit reports are reliable when it comes to specific missed payments.
'Cause if they were 30 days late sometime in February, that means it was due in January.
Oh, because not knowing anything about how credit reports are written, I assumed "30 days late for February" meant the February payments were 30 days late.
Good answers guys but I am going to hang with Yogi. Have fun.
On the subject of anonymity, DeWayne and I used aliases and reserved our photos while that sick bastard still lived. However since we are such fine looking white Caucasian gentlemen, our photos have been available for years now.
On the other hand, I am commenting on the blog of a guy that looks like a rodent. That just proves us Tea Party Conservatives are open minded and dedicated to the truth no matter how un-evolved the source may in fact be.
You mothers have a great day tomorrow.
Guys:
Will G. is right about reading a credit report.
In February the tab for Las Vegas became due along with whatever money was spent in Pennsylvania and Harlow was unable to work. It is amazing that only two car payments were missed in February. By the end of February, there is no question that they were in financial trouble.
Interesting point the two car payments missed were on Joe's cars not Harlow's.
Anonymous One
Anonymous One, if you're conceding that they were in financial trouble in February, and we know that by April Joe was talking about bankruptcy, it really makes no difference if the car payments were missed in January or not. One does not go into such deep debt in a short period of time, obviously they were in trouble in January, which is the point Jim is making about the motive for the murder.
Since PC ordered the credit reports I'll leave it to him as the final authority on their reading, but as I recall when I looked into the matter years ago they were read as being X days late on the month indicated. And no one has contradicted me since (including Elm, who no doubt would have leaped on me on that point had I been in error).
And yes, it is a very apt observation that Harlow's car got priority when it came to repayment, which kind of tells you who was really calling the shots in that household and therefore in that relationship.
I said they were in financial trouble in February. January 1 is a whole different story. In January, they bought last minute tickets to Las Vegas, stayed several nights in a hotel, may have to buy a second ticket home for Harlow (since it was said he lost his ticket), took the trip up to Luzerne County. During the month of January, Harlow certainly was not working as much as previous months. In February, he hardly worked at all. March was worse with the Cops shooting up the Boydello, and our guys living in a hotel with no income for extended periods of time. I believe if you look at just the credit card debt, you will see a huge increases in the balances starting with February. This qualifies as financial trouble.
By the time they were arrested in May, they may passed the point of no return. Then Virginia seized their remaining assets including some $20,000 in cash and I believe there was a savings account in Harlow's name.
Annonymous One
I believe that after the murder, Joe was trying to appease Harlow. This is when the coat of "chincilla" was given to him, and the cameras stolen from Kokis. If you believe that Joe did the slicing, dicing and flambe-ing, then Joe would be petrified of a) Harlow leaving him and b)going to the cops. Either would sink Joe's financial "empire". The later would put him possibly on death row.
If you buy this theory, Harlow could not be left alone, and Joe would be sweet-talking Harlow as much as possible and distraking him as much as possible by giving these "gifts". Not making a payment on the one thing that Harlow really cared about(the car) would detract from this strategy.
Anonymous One
Anonymous One - Joe said they were all but bankrupt in April. And they didn't have access to even a cash advance in February to make car payments, meaning by then most of their credit cards were maxed out. But you believe despite all that that they were financially solvent on January 1? No, they knew they were on the road to bankruptcy in January, when the murder plot was hatched and carried out. Financial collapse doesn't happen in a matter of weeks, it builds up over a long period. The Las Vegas trip and other January expenses you mention were paid for with their fast-disappearing credit. They managed to scrape up enough to travel to California in April, when Joe SAID they were broke and near bankruptcy, so making similar purchases in January is no proof of solvency.
Yep I'd say January was the month they managed to max out their credit cards with cash advances.
This is what I wrote on the subject years ago in my "Motive" post, it's still completely valid today:
"...Harlow was WAY over limit on most of his credit cards; here is the breakdown on that:
Chase 1: $50,000 limit - $55,071 owed = $5,071 OVER LIMIT
Discover Fin: $4,000 limit - $3626.00 owed = $374.00 available
BofA: $18,000 limit - $40,117.00 owed = $22,117 OVER LIMIT
Chase 2: $100,000 limit - $119,113 owed = $19,113 OVER LIMIT
AMEX: $11,556 owed; AMEX is squishy when it comes to credit limits, however, it looks like they were finally cut off (see info concerning Joe's frantic call to credit card companies below).
Except for a piddling sum left on Discover, all their cards were maxxed out...nay, WELL over the limit. There is only one conclusion you can make from all this…in the MONTHS prior to the murder, Harlow and Joe were running a credit card Ponzi scheme. They were robbing Peter to pay Paul (or, in this case, B of A to pay Chase Manhattan), taking cash advances on one card to make minimum payments on other cards, in addition to whatever other spending whim Joe might have had at the time."
On top of that, there was evidence of "Joe...frantically making phone calls to Harlow’s credit card companies, pleading for these over limit credit extensions. Again, this all occurred MONTHS prior to the murder."
Matter of fact, you don't even need witness evidence to prove they were begging for over limit extensions over the phone before the murder; it's obvious that the only way a credit card company will allow you to go $22,000 over, it's because you BEGGED them on bended knee to do so. There is no other explanation.
So, this myth that they were financially hunky dory before the murder, and only collapsed financially due to the RICO operation, is just that...a myth.
if Cuadra and Kerekes were already broke there would have been no need for the VA RICO, since they were in jail being extradited to another state. the VA RICO action pretty much makes the case that VA was of the opinion that Cuadra and Kerekes had enough hidden money and assets to pay for lawyers - which they did have didn't they? `
VA had been planning their RICO action separately from the murder investigation for a long time. The book covers this interesting coincidence.
Whether VA "needed" to use RICO is neither here nor there. VA didn't have any knowledge of Harlow and Joe's finances before they decided to pounce; they just pounced w/o any foreknowledge, and took what happened to be recent cash just in from their illegal prostitution ring. As I recall, it didn't amount to much. Especially when stacked up against that mountain of debt.
...Cuadra and Kerekes had enough hidden money and assets to pay for lawyers - which they did have didn't they?
They were both declared indigent and had public defenders.
By the way, speaking of public defenders, there was a bit of speculation here and on PC's blog recently about who has been paying for Harlow's appeals lawyer. I think everyone forgot that he had filed with the court to appoint one for him. That came to light when the lawyer he had withdrew, probably due to Harlow's lack of funds. I didn't even know that courts appointed appeals lawyers, especially when appeals aren't mandatory as they would be with a death sentence. But it's possible Fannick is being paid by the state.
RICO-ing hookers is pretty much a joke unless the hookers were involved in murder and extortion.
Harlow's lawyers withdrew because in most cases they were dismissed by the Judge. The instance that comes to mind is the conflict of interest when one of Harlow's Attorneys and one of Joe's Attorneys moved into the same office. The only time Harlow's attorneys were dismissed is when his friends were able to raise enough money to hire a private attorney.
Anonymous One
In addition to the trips, repairs to the boydello, the hotels on the lam, and cash withdrawals to pay for food and payments on the car and mortgage, there were late fees, over credit limit fees, and tons of interest.
I also believe Joe was withdrawing cash from the credit cards to create a reserve fund if they had to go on the run again or to pay for attorneys.
This is not to say that on January 1, 2007 there were zero balances on all of the accounts. There were balances but probably far smaller than $217,927 shown on the May Credit Report.
Anonymous One
VA had been planning their RICO action separately from the murder investigation for a long time. The book covers this interesting coincidence.
if it's in the book it must be true.
"RICO-ing hookers is pretty much a joke unless the hookers were involved in murder and extortion."
Or cutting another escort service owner's throat.
And here's another reason why Harlow and Joe earned themselves special attention from the VA police and a RICO investigation. At the beginning of Chapter 4:
"They were so successful, in fact, that at one point local officials in Norfolk became concerned when a Google search of the city's name would most often pop up with Norfolk Male Companions at or near the top of the search list."
Not exactly low profile.
The only thing unusual or surprising about the anti-prostitution arrest is that it didn't happen sooner.
Anonymous (Two) instead of taking these occasional cryptic potshots at PC and the book, why not explicitly state your grievances so they can be discussed? And why not come out from under the cloak of anonymity? Not that we don't know who you are already...
Well at least pick a monicker. Maybe a mongoose. I think they eat cobras.
Or a honey badger. They don't give a shit.
Peter Everhard, Randy Pecker, Rusty Lover, Critter, Marion --- Just choose one, or make up a new one!
I can already predict what Mr. Everhard's major gripe about the book is, as seen in this tweet from "Randy Pecker" to Andrew Stoner: No mention of the "Kids for Cash" scandal. Aside from the fact that I'm not sure that's even true (again, no index makes it impossible to check), Peter/Randy should feel free to explain to us why he thinks that has any relevance to the murder case. In my opinion, tying the two together is just Alex Jones-style conspiracy mongering. But have at it.
Not that it would effect the outcome of Harlow's trial, but I always wondered if Bryan ever had anything to do with Kids for Cash. Afterall, young teenage boys in detention would be a prime field to pick up new recruits for Cobra, and earn extra money for the operators of the detention center. Then there is the burning question of what Judge Conahan got in return for expunging Bryan's criminal record.
However Bitchless argument that Luzerne County lost its ability to prosecute does not hold water unless the trial judge or prosecutor was involved in Cobra, a unlikely fact.
Anonymous One
Kids for Cash: Two Judges, Thousands of Children, and a $2.6 Million Kickback Scheme
Yes Mr. Everhard, we're all quite familiar with what Kids for Cash is all about. Although one of the Two Judges was involved in Kocis' corruption-of-a-minor case, it has no connection to the murder. Thus there is no reason for it to be included in the book. However, as I said, I'm not sure if it was mentioned in passing or not. That's all it would deserve.
"...but I always wondered if Bryan ever had anything to do with Kids for Cash."
Two things can happen in the same place and time, and still be totally unconnected with each other.
I'm sure that if the Kocis and Cobra had anything to do with the general Luzerne County corruption scandal, the army of investigative reporters looking into it (including Michael Moore) would have uncovered it by now.
It would be quite a story if it were true though ("...ok son, I can sentence you to this juvenile boot camp, OR you can help out this local friend of mine in the movie business...").
Yeah. Had this been the case we would have seen this prominently featured in Capitalism: A Love Story". This would not have been overlooked.
Cuadra's trial judge was photographed vacationing with Conahan at the Florida condo bought with "KidsforCash" kickback money.
The original DA for Cuadra and Kerekes was David Lupas. Lupas was the DA who "participated" with Conahan in correcting Bryan Kocis' guilty plea to justify Kocis not having registered as a sex offend.
As the book points out kocis was never prosecuted on porn and prostitution charges when both were and are criminalized in PA.
And what does any of that prove Peter? You have to do better than make these kinds of guilt-by-association insinuations. Everything you mention is attributable to "Kids for Cash" and the Kocis murder trial both taking place within the Luzerne County legal system. Other than that, there's no there there.
Merely pointing out coincidences isn't enough when you're trying to prove there's some kind of grand conspiracy. Otherwise, "Kids for Cash" is nothing but a shiny object you're using to distract yourself from the mundane fact that Harlow and Joe killed Bryan Kocis for mundane reasons.
I'm sure that if the Kocis and Cobra had anything to do with the general Luzerne County corruption scandal, the army of investigative reporters looking into it (including Michael Moore) would have uncovered it by now.
Forget Michael Moore, the ones who would have uncovered it by now are Harlow, Joe, and their attorneys. Funny how we've never heard a peep about this conspiracy from the two people who were framed by it.
again, "Cobra Killer" is exactly what that PC deserved. sure a lot of others think the same.
...sure a lot of others think the same.
Oh I'm SURE they do "Peter." Another drive-by knock at PC, who has simply reported the FACTS of this case, instead of indulging your obsession with the completely irrelevant Kids for Cash. Who are these "a lot of others" who are bothered by that? Aside from your many aliases?
Update 19:
While I might quibble with you calling that a "new fact," when it's really more of an opinion, however much it's based on his profiling experience, it is an interesting quote. And it IS new and original to this book, which contains quite a bit of original interview material that it generally hasn't been given enough credit for (except by me on Amazon!) because most readers aren't even aware there are new interviews in the book unless they carefully comb the footnotes, like you did. I think most people associate footnotes with citations of already-existing sources, ala Wikipedia, which has led some to incorrectly assume that this heavily footnoted book is all based on other people's reporting.
I'm sure there are some new facts revealed among those original interviews, I'm just not sure this is one of them.
I think we can conceed the point that Harlow was a male prostitute and probably quite good at it. To be sucessful at that "profession" one has to put on an "act" that satisfies the client and makes him a repeat customer. At the same time Harlow had been in the Navy for two years and obviously his persona then had to be different for him to survive. Though as a medic, you would expect some degree of compassion for a injured sailor back then. Not sure this item helps us very much to discover the true "Harlow" personality.
Anonymous One
Footnotes, endnotes, in text citation, and informational notes.
If it contributes to the main text of a writer's argument, it is to be included in the main text and if attributed to another, properly sourced.
Footnotes are properly used to explain/expand on a point raised in the main text of an argument, but not relevant to the author's thesis.
Endnotes are used at the end of a chapter and are primarily a convenience for the reader because all citations are in one uniform place (relatively speaking). They are also a convenience for the publisher since the same font can be used in composing the citations as the main text.
Currently, all the professions prefer in text citation of sources to avoid distracting the reader's attention to either footnotes (unless explanatory) or endnotes. In any event the method of citation is to be consistent and follow the rules of citation for the profession/discipline and not to be composed in such a manner as to misinform the reader. Current guidelines of the Modern Language Association of American--governs the citation of sources in the Humanities and related disciplines.
APA format governs the sciences.
Why the lecture on citing sources?
Most writers try to source direct quotes properly. However, there are less reputable writers, like Gerald Posner, who purposely attempt to mislead with muddled attributions and virtually worthless informational footnotes that detract from issues and points being raised. This arises from evidence being used in the main text of the argument that does not entirely prove a thesis or premise or ignoring pertinent evidence that reinforces a counter argument.
As a scholar in the humanities, I become suspicious of arguments that make a routine of referring the reader to informational footnotes. It usually indicates a problem in the logical structure of the writer's thesis.
As a scholar in the humanities, I'm sure you will agree that repeatedly using the name "Judge Michael Conahan" in a true crime book about the prosecution of Harlow Cuadra without ever informing the reader that Judge Michael Conahan is in prison on racketeering charges is ... "a bit comical".
My guess (with no index to confirm it) is that Conahan's name is mentioned once in the book. And yes, it is entirely proper that his incarceration isn't mentioned (IF that's even true), since it's an irrelevant tangent.
Ahem, page 285:
Although never implicated in scandals that swept two other Luzerne County judges from the bench under federal indictment, Olszewski's opponents nonetheless circulated a damaging photo of the judge unknowingly posing next to a convicted drug dealer.
So there's your Kids for Cash reference Mr. Everhard, exactly the amount of coverage the scandal deserves in a book about something completely unrelated to it.
Olszewski himsself charged that the photograph of him with Conahan and a convicted drug dealer was leaked by Michael Conahan.
btw, prior to becoming a Judge, Olszewski was The Luzerne county DA, before David Lupas
Delayed again.
Harlow is packing on weight like O.J. I guess he finished my King James Bible and Bluejacket's Manual and has little to do but eat and lift weights.
I would disagree with Geoff. Looking at the picture on PC's blog, it appeared that Harlow was in fairly good shape. Keep in mind that he will be 32 in a few months, so one should expect him to fill out a little since his arrest. But to compare him to corpulent OJ -NO!!
Anonymous One
David Zaldivar, Harlow's little brother, posted Harlow's junior high fat pics. He has a predeliction for corpulence.
One more quote I want to mention in connection with this subject, before I move on:
"...Cuadra says to us, he looks up at us and says, 'Joe didn't do this.' He just volunteers this as we walk in the door..."
OK. Some of you who have followed this blog for a while know that my opinion on Harlow has evolved over time. Initially, WAY back when, I toyed with the possibility that he may have been a relatively innocent bystander in all this, controlled and dominated by Joe. And this for all the obvious observable reasons, ie, Joe is older, Joe is bigger, Joe is stronger, Joe has a temper, etc.
It's only over time, as the evidence began to roll in, that it became obvious to me that Harlow was as much the instigator in all this as was Joe, if not more so. If anyone was manipulating anyone, it was Harlow manipulating Joe.
There are numerous examples I can cite, the Higgins profiling opinion here for one. And right here above: 'Joe didn't do this.'
Nowadays, a major difficulty I have with the theory that Harlow was but a wallflower in all this (like I said, just one of many, but this one is a BIGGIE) is the fact that I know the whole history of when this whole 'it was all Joe's doing' story emerged. It began THE DAY AFTER Joe took his plea deal.
I call bullshit. If that's Harlow's story, then the time for him to have first told that story was to Higgins the day he was arrested .... NOT MONTHS LATER!
But what does he tell Higgins instead? 'Joe didn't do this.'
And what does he say about Joe, THE ENTIRE time before Joe made his plea deal? Why, Joe is Harlow's eternal "soulmate," according to what he said on the Roecker video. Joe completes him, H&J forever!
That was, IIRC, just weeks before Joe made his plea deal. And after the plea deal? The story CHANGED ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.
'It was all Joe, it was all eeeeeeevil Joe!' said Harlow the day after Joe made his plea deal. The day after it became apparent they would NOT be tried together. AND NOT A DAY SOONER did he begin saying this.
Sorry, but NO. I call total bullshit on this. The appropriate time to sell Joe down the river (assuming Harlow's sob story was true) was on DAY ONE when he was in that interrogation room with Higgins. But instead, what does he say to Higgins, unprompted? 'Joe didn't do this.'
I'm assuming through all that their joint defense plan at the beginning was to hold fast, for neither to turn on the other, then try to lay blame for the murder elsewhere (ie, insinuations against Sean and Grant). In fact...why do I even need to assume this? They literally told us as much during the three-way prison calls!
Anyways, the fact that this new Joe-did-it story never emerged until Joe's plea meant their original plan was no longer valid means that it is certainly a fabrication.
And again, this is just ONE of many instances which molded my opinion of Harlow over the years. And as HUGE as this is, it's not even the biggest! There was an incident that occurred during the trial that in my mind proved beyond a doubt that Harlow was involved in this murder up to his eyeballs.
The book does not mention this incident (sadly) but I will talk about it more when we get to Chapter 10.
Ah but Harlow was still under Joe's "coercion" when he made that outburst to Higgins. Joe had threatened him that if they were arrested, he'd BETTER tell the police that "Joe didn't do this" or he'd get sliced and diced just like Bryan. It wasn't until Harlow knew Joe was safely locked away for the rest of his life that he felt safe enough to tell the truth.
Kidding, you're totally right.
Yeah "coercion" doesn't magically turn on and off depending on whether a coercers plea deal get accepted.
if you are charged with a crime along with another or several people it would amount to legal malepractice for your lawyer to not at least attempt to claim that the other person(s) actually committed the crime. it's not rocket science.
I doubt the lawyer was calling the shots on any of these decisions.
I remember all the blogging from these days. After the arrest, there was INTENSE speculation on whether one would turn on the other, who would turn on whom, who would get a plea deal for their testimony, etc. The phrase "prisoner's dilemma" was bandied about quite a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
What happened instead was, MUCH to my frustration and to many others, they never turned on each other (at least not when it mattered). Harlow and Joe both said in their prison blog posts that they were BOTH "wrongly accused" and there would be no plea deal. Ever.
Joe went a step further and made an outburst at one of the hearing: "Harlow won't roll on me!"
They obviously had a plan, probably formulated while they were on the run hiding in Florida, for neither to turn on the other. I imagine they swore mighty oaths to each other regarding this point during those furtive days.
And, to their credit, they both held to it...up and until the time Joe pled. At that point it became moot, and Harlow thusly changed his story. And that's just ONE reason why I have no respect for it's veracity.
It's a story of convenience.
It's a story of convenience, but it's also the only story he could have told given Joe's plea. I can't remember if Harlow's jury was told of Joe's plea or not, but I'm sure they knew about it, though I don't think they knew about him saying Harlow alone killed Kocis. So he tailored his testimony to account for Joe's plea, while also maintaining his own innocence, in the only way possible. Of course it's a load of hogwash that I also have no respect for, but I do understand why he did it. If he hadn't taken the stand there was no way in hell he wouldn't have been convicted given the evidence against him. So he made a Hail Mary pass, took the stand, and weaved a tall tale around Joe's plea.
I do not believe that Harlow and Joe had a pact that if Harlow remained silent about the incident and did not blame Joe, and it came to a trial that Joe would take the stand and absolve Harlow. Joe almost did that, but stopped short in such a way as to do maximum damage to Harlow's case. Remember that the Jury heard Joe saying he could not testify. Harlow's attorneys had based their defence on Joe's testimony and as Will says that they felt that Harlow had nothing to lose. Harlow wanted to testify so they let him. But they did not sufficiently prepare him. If they did prepare him at all.
Anonymous One
There was a second component to Harlow's testimony that is worth noting. Extraneous material was introduced that must have embarrassed the heck out of him. For example, the film of Harlow and Sean on Black's Beach being shown with Harlow's mother sitting right behind him. Then there was the weight lifting scene which could have been the version with him masturbating at the end. Finally, Melnick showing the pictures to the Jury that were sent to Bryan. The resentment over three weeks would have built up and was reflected in his attitude towards the man persecuting him (in Harlow's opinion).
Then Harlow's ill attempt to use terms like Stockholm Syndrome to explain his actions when in all likelihood he meant something else.
Throw in the scene of Joe knocking at the door and punching Bryan in the nose (done to explain how Joe got in without Harlow's help)and Harlow has lost the jury.
Anonymous One
the law that Cuadra is using to request a new trial could also be used by Kerekes to claim that he was coerced into pleading guilty.
No, actually Joe is not able to request a new trial, he gave up his right to appeal when he accepted his plea deal. He also had to swear that he was not being coerced into pleading guilty.
"Stockholm Syndrome" was another one of those terms being bandied about the Kocisphere back then too. That Harlow used it at trial shows what blogs he'd been reading.
All of the principals in this case other than police, prosecutors, judge, jury, etc. are or were delusional and deceptive. That is the reason for all the lurid interest from the Kocisphere.
Convicted killer seeks new trial
"You know my background, the controversy of my underage work, and the murder of Bryan Kocis, has kept a lot of porn companies and a lot of porn performers away from me. Which is OK, completely understandable. I'm sure people were worried that if they got on my bad side they might get knifed. But that's not the case."
Thanks for clearing that up.
Happy Anniversary?
(I've been privy to PC's complaints about Magnus privately. There MAY be some interesting news about a second printing in the offing...)
Remember that Magnus was a last minute stand in publisher when the original publisher wanted to do e-book only and the authors didn't like it. That may account for deficiencies in editing and the lack of an index. Can anyone cite other titles published by Magnus?
magnusbooks.com
Don Weise of Magnus was the publisher of Alyson Books, the previous publisher you mentioned, who left and started Magnus when Alyson went the e-book route. You can read about him and it here.
"Remember that Magnus was a last minute stand in publisher when the original publisher wanted to do e-book only"
isn't the definition of "advance" something paid BEFORE the book is published?
news reports have Scott Thorson only being paid $100,000 for the movie rights to "behind the candelabra".
Update 20:
The source for this supposed MTV interview having happened, according to the footnote, is the Black's Beach tape transcript. You say this is something you've heard about before, but this is actually the first I've heard of it. Has there ever been any independent verification that it's true?
If you've ever seen one of those True Life programs, you know that it's more than just an interview, they follow the subjects around for several days and make a documentary about them. I have a hard time believing this really happened, especially if the only source is either Harlow or Joe on the tapes. They could have been trying to puff up their own "celebrity" status to Grant and Sean so they'd want to do business with them. You can be sure if it did exist, the D.A. would have subpoenaed MTV for a copy and used it in the trial, but of course that didn't happen.
The whole thing just seems so bizarre. Who arranged for this interview? Their lawyer? Why would he put them at risk of incriminating themselves in an interview he and they had no control over?
I call bullshit.
No, I think it did happen, there was even a name of an interviewer (Garth something, IIRC). It's come up before, and not just through H&J I think.
It's one of those things that happened that have not really been looked into or followed up on. Like I said, I think their demeanor in this interview would be revealing.
I'd also be curious to know what motivated MTV to do this in the first place.
What was the title of this episode of True Life? "I Am a Prostitute on the Run"? If you say it's true I believe you, though I'd note that those True Life programs don't usually have a named interviewer, it's more of a first-person cinema-verite kind of thing. And yes, I'd also be very curious to know how this all came about.
The whole point of that True Life series was to show people going about their ordinary lives. Hiding out in a dingy motel room in Miami was hardly Harlow and Joe's normal life.
If the only source for the MTV interview is H&J's statements on the Black Beach recordings, then it is not legit. They both are and were delusional and deceptive. If they were hiding out in a motel in Miami, how could MTV find them and stage an interview on short notice? You would have to fly in an interviewer and crew or else post a Craigslist ad for locals and vet them and put them to work. And then there is the journalistic dilemma of knowing the location of two fugitives and wanting their story but not reporting them to the police. Probably didn't happen.
I would agree with everything you said Geoff (hard to believe, I know) except they weren't "fugitives," in that there was no warrant for their arrest. So this purported MTV crew would have been under no obligation to report them. If they were fugitives, they would have been arrested in California, instead of being surreptitiously recorded.
Update 19: On to Chapter 8. "In the short time they did spend together, Higgins came away unimpressed with Cuadra. "He is a male prostitute, and he comes across as soft, by the way he speaks and his mannerisms, but I can see right through that," Higgins said. ... "He acts like that to get people to do what he wants, to manipulate people."
----
I think Harlow is in fact soft, and not just in order to get what he wants. It is not an act as Higgins is quoted as saying. Everyone who had had prior contact with Harlow had said that this guy is just not a murderer, can't be the right guy.
He simply found out that he was hot enough (by some standards) to get paid well for fucking, etc. That line of work will screw up your thought processes and self worth / value system. It does not mean your personality is totally fake.
The fact the Harlow sang and danced that Tammy Wynette song "Stand by Your Man" all the way to doing hard time/life/no parole in the clink, says that Harlow was pretty much under a deep spell, and that he only snapped out of it when the jury read GUILTY IN THE FIRST DEGREE as his mother had another bad meltdown in public.
He was soft enough to fall for Joe, when others would have ratted him flat out directly after a sunny vacation in Miami.
So this "Stockholm Syndrome" thing is really not so far fetched. I think he did follow Joe right through all of this like a lost lamb. Joe might have convinced him to do the knife work in PA! This shows a "soft" guy, being (too) agreeable.
"Stockholm Syndrome" or not, this is far too dangerous of a guy to be running around loose I would agree. Some of the Manson followers were also ones who came from a nice background, no violence, and good families, but were prone to follow, and got hooked up with a bad seed.
Anyway, this is a take on the dynamic of the two H/J.
quicksrt
Cuadra was a very young guy completely divorced from his family. With Kerekes, Cuadra got not only a lover, an income, friends,... but he also got a caring substitute father and mother through Kerekes' parents.
Cuadra was a trained killer before he met Kerekes in that he was in the military. the military chews up soft passive males, just like prison chews up soft passive males.
LOOK AT HIS FACE. allegedly the preferred way of attacking and humiliating someone in prison is to slash their face with a blade. When someone has been in prison for a long time and they don't have one single fucking mark on their face, it pretty much means they either have some kick as protection in prison or that other prisoners know better than to fuck with them.
Cuadra was no trained killer. He attended Navy basic training and Hospital Corps school and was assigned as the equivalent of an LPN at the naval hospital in Norfolk. He administered oral and topical meds and emptied bed pans, delivered meals, made beds. He claimed to have served with Marines in Afghanistan, but he is a liar.
I would agree with Geoff that Harlow was no trained killer. Otherwise I would agree with the other anonymous about Harlow's character. I think that Harlow did love Joe at one point, but they were on the skids at the begining of 2007. The main reason why Harlow stuck with Joe after the murder was he did not want to lose his interest in Boys R Us and Boybatter.
After all he had put a lot of sweat equity into the business not to mention other bodily fluids.
After the arrest, Harlow felt that ratting out on Joe would eliminate his only remaining hope for a defense (Joe would in extremis exonerate Harlow). Knowing Joe and his temper, Harlow making an accusation would have brought retalitory action from Joe.
Harlow may also have acquired from his Navy days a standard of loyal to his unit and never "telling" on another member of his unit.
Anonymous One
Garth Bardsly was an independent producer who was putting together a film focused on Bryan Kocis. He did not fly in a crew but hired local cameramen. In San Diego he interviewed Sean and Grant at Grant's house, DeWayne and I at a city park and Brent Everett at his apartment. The project fell apart because Sean would not sign a release without some assurances Garth would not agree to. Sean had learned his lesson from the Rolling Stone interview. Garth may have intended to sell the finished product to MTV but they were not funding his research. He was on his own dime.
Garth had already interviewed Robert Wagner in New York but had not yet met with Harlow and Joe.
Thanks for the info, Albert. Based on his imdb entry, Garth was/is sort of a marginal figure in the film/tv industry and may just not have had enough cred for MTV to plow any money into the project. Considering whom he interviewed, I think his path may have been as follows: the 3:08 Youtube clip of Schoolboy Crush featuring Brent and Brent set to the Scottish band Franz Ferdinand "Take Me Out," to Dewayne's blog in July 2007 when Sean was banned everywhere and didn't have his own blog, to Garth's perceptions about who the principals and witnesses might be. When were the interviews in San Diego conducted? Garth has a footprint. Maybe someone could ask if he has any footage of H&J. We could watch them being delusional and deceptive in a hotel in Miami.
Oops, I left out the unfriendly Rolling Stone article in the path right after Dewayne's blog.
Geoff, I had to go back to the EXIF metadata on a picture I took of Garth, DeWayne and I to get the date. https://www.flickr.com/photos/altexas/5524326814/sizes/o/in/photostream/ It was 13 September 2007 Garth interviewed DeWayne, myself and Mr. Everett. Sean and Grant had been interviewed the previous day. Garth is in the brown shirt in this picture. By the way, Sean started Brent Corrigan Online in late 2005 so he had a blog.
Thanks, Albert. I remember now that you posted that here in 2011. flickr is a pain in the ass, by the way. If Garth interviewed Kocis and Wagner in 2006, he must have followed the juiceygoo battle or else have been a Cobra fan.
I think it was Bryans death that got Garth involved. He really did not know that much about Sean but was impressed with his eloquence. I am pretty sure Robert had been interviewed a few weeks before Garth came to San Diego.
OK so it sounds like Jim was remembering that previous discussion here about Garth's aborted film project and got it confused with the book's MTV reference. This highly improbable-sounding True Life episode is obviously a figment of H & J's imagination. It's just a shame that, in addition to mistakenly calling the show Real Life, the book states that this "interview" happened, as if it's an independently established fact. Only a reader who checks the footnote will discover the dubious source for this "fact."
See the latest entry at the Cobra Killer blog.
http://www.cobrakiller.com/
Apparently Don Weise and Magnus Books are like unto Lee Bergeron's gay ski weekend or maybe the Kingfish running a scheme on Andy, Amos, and Calhoun.
Cobra Killer is what PC deserved.
Talk about drama. The Cobra Killer blog is now open only to those who have been invited to read it, and I am not invited. Do you think Anonymous above is the Kingfish himself?
someone is showing their age ...
Faulty pronoun-antecedent agreement. Someone is singular, while their is plural. The pronoun his should be used unless the oxymoronic imperative clearly prevails, deah, Kingfish.
You couldn't be more wrong Geoff, just Google "their definition":
Belonging to or associated with a person of unspecified sex: "she heard someone blow their nose loudly"
As for the book blog, I'll tweet PC and ask him about it.
(And don't say it's still wrong because your sex is not unspecified, the point is you said "their" is always plural.)
"Their" is always genitive plural according to the American Heritage Dictionary. (I don't assume anyone else has quick access to the OED.) Don't tell me fucking Google. It is useful, but its operatives also don't care about the language and carelessly subvert it.
Concerning the book blog, I assume the writers are in disagreement about what to say publicly about their (genitive plural) relations with the publisher.
Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "their":
2. Used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent - "anyone in their senses" — W. H. Auden
You're wrong Geoff, don't be so stubborn.
The blog going offline has nothing to do with any disagreement between the authors, it's connected to the authors' beef with the publisher.
"Don Weise, Editorial Director of Magnus/Riverdale..."
Someone is taking their sweet time posting the next update...
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Someone might have to work or something.
Update 21:
And STILL TODAY, there was that idiot who posted a comment on the Sword a few months back about how Harlow was at the GAYVNs after the murder!
Yes, you mentioned this once in the comments already, and I still wish you could remember which Sword post this comment appeared on so we could check it out. Was it in a post about Brent Corrigan? Please rack your brain, my curiosity is piqued. There are only two "idiots" I can think of who would post a comment at this late date implying Harlow is innocent, and one of them has been participating with us in this reunion. Was it one of your many aliases "Peter"?? (Sorry I called you an idiot, LOL.) Not even Joe or Harlow on their smartphones would be stupid enough to try and peddle this BS, I don't think, at least I hope not.
I know the story above the thread had something to do with Brent Corrigan...but for the life of me I cannot recall the exact context.
Good, that narrows it down. I'll go over all their few-months-old Brent threads later.
The fact that Sean and Grant were in San Diego at the time of Bryan's death was of course irrelevant. At least that is what their accusers wanted to sell.
Here it is almost 3 AM and I'm up looking for that comment. Haven't found it yet, but found this comment from "Inquiring Minds" aka our old friend Anonymous 2/Peter. (I think.) This leads me to believe he's going to be the one responsible for the Harlow/GayVN comment. The search continues...
My search has been an abject failure. I looked at all BC posts from last August through April. The only comments that directly discussed the Kocis murder were in the thread I already linked.
Here are all of The Sword's BC posts. If anyone else wants to give it a shot, be my guest. Good night.
"Let me tell you what was going on in the Kocisphere back then ... "
The closest the Bryan Kocis' murder ever got to "mainstream" was when a blogger was posting about it to netscape. Netscape was a new high profile Digg-like website at the time.
Please note that it is Joe who is doing all of the postings at the time using one of his three personas: Joe, Mark and Trent. I still doubt that during this time, that Harlow posted anything (except maybe his racing blog where he asked for the instructions to operate certain cameras, though even that could possibly have been Joe). The only authentic conversations that can be attributed to Harlow were the telephone conversations with Elm and the police.
Of course with Joe constantly standing right next to him, it would very foolish to blurt out "Joe did Bryan in".
Anonymous One.
Wait, now I'm confused. I had the brilliant idea of Googling "Harlow Cuadra GayVN Awards" to try and find that comment, and came across this:
One year ago this weekend, Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes set off to Las Vegas for the GayVN awards, and to have dinner with Sean Lockhart and Grant Roy.
So how could Harlow have (ostensibly) attended the GayVN's in San Francisco if they had already been held in Las Vegas? Was this just a mistake on PC's blog? The book refers to what was happening in Vegas as the "Adult Video News Expo," which is different than the GayVN Awards show, which I assume was held later in San Francisco, if "Mark" was bragging about sending Harlow there.
So confusing...
"Please note that it is Joe who is doing all of the postings at the time using one of his three personas: Joe, Mark and Trent."
so confident about something you can't possibly know to be true. some of us have emails from the accounts cuadra, kerekes, etc were using. do you?
Speaking of Elm, here he is dutifully repeating the "fact" that Harlow attended the GayVN's:
February 24th 2007 Harlow is spotted at the GAYVN awards in San Francisco; it is rumored that he is filming a scene with Brent Corrigan.
Yeah the fact that it made Elm's timeline is one thing that helped cement the lie in so many minds back then.
As to who wrote what posts, Joe probably wrote most of them, even some of the ones from from "harlowcuadra". I've looked at the writing at the various posts, and I've seen pattern evidence that indicates at least two different people wrote under that screen name.
Same for "sanfransam", it looks to me like both Joe and Harlow wrote posts under that name, at varying times.
Yes Jim, it was the pattern evidence that showed who wrote what. Harlow was not a writer. Neither was Bryan. Joseph was fair to good but too consistent. I was brought in, in part to stalk Bryan who was stalking Sean. He was a nasty POS with a distinctive approach to his nastiness. At one point I outlined how to recognize Bryans writing and Sean posted that description on BCO. As part of the agreement, that post was removed. I will give Joseph credit for at least knowing how to spell but he was not real good at misspelling. That either comes naturally or requires great skill. Bryan honestly could not spell, or he used a lot of drugs which I doubt.
Ugh that comment I wrote about PC's blog is stupid, it's obviously just a mistake and it isn't really "confusing." Although I am a bit surprised it was never pointed out by anyone and corrected.
gone private blog and deleted personal twitter
Update 22:
I don't have much to say, I just like to keep the thread orderly.
I did find it amusing at the end of the chapter when H & J tried to unload Norfolk Male Companions, "a legitimate escort service," to raise some cash. I don't think there were buyers lined up around the block for this "legitimate service" that had just been targeted by the feds.
Barry Taylor was Harlow's and Joe's Lawyer. He had an ethical responsibility to try to get that money back.
Whatever you think of Barry Taylor's reasons, he had no choice as their representative to do what he did.
Anonymous One
Jim:
Didn't you once say that you thought that Renee Martin had written some of the Free Harlow Blogs.
There were also insinuations that she may have worked for Joe and Harlow prior to their arrest. If so could she have worked on the Boybatter Blog?
Anonymous One
Granted that $26,585.25 would be insufficient to defend even one of the two defendants. However, if they were not facing a trial, could not this money been used to reduce their outstanding debt.
(Still trying to get Harlow's legs a break)
Anonymous One
Anonymous at 8:21 PM. So what is your public twitter?
Or to repeat Yogi Berra, "Never respond to an anonymous letter."
I should correct myself, it wasn't the feds who targeted Norfolk Companions, it was Virginia authorities, even though RICO is a federal law.
Anonymous One, certainly that wad of cash could have gone towards paying down their debt, but as we know they were even skipping car payments. It leads me to believe they had decided at some point to stop servicing their debt because they knew they would need that money for their defense, knowing full well they'd be arrested for murder. They just didn't count on it being seized beforehand.
Anonymous at 8:21 PM. So what is your public twitter?
PERSONAL twitter, as oppose to book twitter
In this alternate universe, Barry Taylor would have been in position and first in line to suck up this $32,000 or so.
Why didn't he, or someone else like the families, petition to have that $32K returned once the RICO prosecution was dropped? The state of Virginia shouldn't be entitled to keep seized assets without a conviction, should they?
I'm sure the reason they had $26,000 in cash squirreled away was to finance their life of living in hotel rooms "on the run" which they were doing just prior to the arrest.
It certainly was not earmarked for debt (otherwise it would not exist) and I doubt they ever intended it prior to the arrest as a legal defense fund.
I'm not sure what the status of the RICO prosecution was. Was it actually dropped?
Most states have their own versions of RICO enacted as state law, in emulation of the federal law.
Page 168:
Virginia authorities eventually dropped their probe into whether Cuadra and Kerekes had conspired to violate the state's RICO act.
Page 169, from a Kerekes interview with AES:
"No one will ever talk about what happened to all that stuff. They just took it and it's gone."
This might be the one time I agree with Joe.
VA probably figured PA took care of the problem for them, saving them the cost of a trial.
That being the case, I presume the property must have been returned, to one of the two.
Perhaps it was returned to Harlow, and no one told Joe?
I think that the RICO case was resolved by Joe & Harlow surrending the cash. In return the state lien on their home was released.
As most of you have stated, the local authorities in Virginia were more than happy to see Pennsylvania take these two and try them for the events in Luzerne County.
Anonymous One
jim said...
VA probably figured PA took care of the problem for them, saving them the cost of a trial.
That being the case, I presume the property must have been returned, to one of the two.
Perhaps it was returned to Harlow, and no one told Joe?"
None of the property seized by Virginia authorities was returned, with the exception of the house - and that was only because is so far under water.
Interesting PC. So $26,585.25 is currently sitting in the Virginia state coffers that isn't legally theirs, as far as I can tell in the bit of research I've done. You'd really think someone who's owed money by H & J, like the credit-card companies or as Jim said Barry Taylor, would have tried to get it back.
"I think that the RICO case was resolved by Joe & Harlow surrending the cash. In return the state lien on their home was released."
Ah that would explain it.
Oh, I kind of glossed over that comment by Anonymous One, mainly because I don't know what his/her source is for this fact that he "thinks" is true. I haven't been able to find that confirmed anywhere.
Anonymous One seems well informed, which is why I'm actually grateful he/she is here and part of the conversation.
In fact, let me take this opportunity and say that I'm grateful for everyone here in this conversation!
Jim, Will G:
Thank you for your comments. Actually I think Will G is better informed than me. He is able to call up actual printed information, where I have to rely on my memory.
Anonymous One.
PS. I am a he.
"will g said...
Interesting PC. So $26,585.25 is currently sitting in the Virginia state coffers that isn't legally theirs, as far as I can tell in the bit of research I've done. You'd really think someone who's owed money by H & J, like the credit-card companies or as Jim said Barry Taylor, would have tried to get it back."
Harlow and Joe agreed to forfeit all of their property, with the exception of the house and the contents that were still left in it.
From Harlow's blog back in 2007, which was actually written by Renee Martin:
"August 8th, 2007 by Harlow Cuadra
Just so that everyone does know the state of Virginia has decided to give the house back to Harlow and Joe. The Document for them to get the house has been signed by both Harlow and Joe, but needless to say they are loosing all of there other property to get back this one thing, the state refused to give them back anything else…… Not a penny of the over 26,585.25 that the state seized that could of went to there attorneys, now think about it if they had done illegal things the state of Virginia they would of prosecuted them to the fullest extent of the law, but instead the State froze all there assets to make sure they had no way to defend there selves….. According to the agreement with the state of
Virginia they are forfeiting all of there property but the property
located at 1028 Stratem Court, Virginia Beach, Va 23451 , according to the the agreement the state agrees to release the Lis Pendens on the residence at 1028 Stratem Court in the City of Virginia Beach agrees to nonsuit the forfeiture action against the property related to the information filed in CR07-003043 , so there were no criminal charges
filed against them but the state took all of there assets that they
could of used to pay there attorneys, now how right is this. How would you like it if the state froze all of your assets and they told you they werent gonna get any of them back and they didnt file any charges against you. Now this is the fair , just legal system that we have…. So Harlow and Joe were left with two choices, to use public defenders, and which they both did apply for and Joe went to see about getting the judge to appoint him a public defender and was denied due to the fact he had to many assets, ( this is because the state of virginia had taken
the assets but they werent forfeited, due to the fact it would of had to go to a hearing in a virginia court and a judge would of had to forfeit all of there assets to the state) this of course never occured. So then
they are stuck trying to retain cousel to represent them with no liquid assets cause the state of virginia had a hold on them, but the state of Pennsylvania says you have to much because they havent been forfeited,this is when Harlow gave up on the Public Defenders office in Pennsylvania and and decided to go with a private attorney. Now either they have assets or they don’t, so basically this boils down to the state of Virginia froze everything they had, and the state of Pennsylvania still considered them there assests due to the fact they were not forfeited by the state of Virginia, Makes no common sense, why should the tax payers have to pay for a public defender if they have assets that could be sold and pay for there defense, why should the state , any state ask for higher taxes if this is what they do to defendants. When a defendant has assets they should be sold for there attorney not let the tax payers take the burden of paying for there defense, as alot of you have said on other blogs, they should of used the public defender , well that would of been nice if they had been allowed to and did not have so many assets that they could not access to pay there own attorneys. So in turn the great state of Virginia decided to take everything for themselves and leave the tax payers of Pennsylvania to foot the bill. Nice! Really Nice! We will hope that the house will sell for something to help pay anything to the attorneys, anything is better then nothing! El go gettem! You have it! display it ! And show them all!"
On one last note, I believe "Anonymous One" is:
William West
Owner, wildmonkeydance
Oh good lord Peter. I remember reading that crap. It was painful. Poor grammar, difficult sentence construction, no clear paragraphs and no logical progression. The spelling errors alone would get an F in my class.
The only thing that came through was an honest concern for the injustice of the situation. That point I agree with. I also object to any government being able to take ones property without a trial and conviction first.
It would be interesting to hear how Virginia Beach justified that taking but of course it will never happen.
Harlow and Joe agreed to forfeit all of their property, with the exception of the house and the contents that were still left in it.
There's no mention of any agreement in Chapter 8, it just ends with Joe complaining bitterly about the seized property to Andrew Stoner. Perhaps this agreement is covered in a later chapter, but I don't recall it.
I should add that I find it very odd that Joe says in the interview with Stoner that "No one will ever talk about what happened to all that stuff" if what Renee said in that 2007 blog is true, that they had agreed to forfeit it to get the house back. The interview presumably happened a couple of years later. Had he just forgotten?
But my hat's off to Anoymous One for remembering this obscure blog posting, it's obviously what he was referring to in his comment above.
What the hell is "wildmonkeydance"?
Remember the locution, "haft to," another signature? Whenever she adopted another identity, she betrayed herself with signature malapropisms.
Wildmonkeydance is a South Carolina based leftwing blog.
This?
That's all I could find in a quick search.
Aha that is it, the posts are signed "W 'wild' West." It's been defunct since 2009.
I'm generally content to let those who want to be anonymous remain so, despite my outing of Peter Everhard. That was just too obvious not to point out.
"I should add that I find it very odd that Joe says in the interview with Stoner that "No one will ever talk about what happened to all that stuff" ..."
I suppose this thread is proving Joe wrong.
And yeah, I vaguely remember this Catch-22 Harlow was involved in re: the RICO forfeiture. It's slowly coming back to me now...
By the sounds of it, RICO actually did Harlow and Joe a favor in the long run, by (eventually) impoverishing them thus eventually making them eligible for a PD. Which they were able to do once the asset forfeiture became official, I guess.
Keep in mind, $26K was no where close to what they needed to buy private attorneys, a point everyone here agrees.
A PD is fine if you resign yourself to pleaing out. In fact, PC posted an article a while back, IIRC, arguing that a PD was actually better than a private attorney in negotiating plea deals, due to their being more familiar with the local prosecutors due to their heavy day to day interactions with them.
The problem here, of course, was Harlow and Joe, and their early declarations of total innocence plus "no plea deals, ever."
http://www.cobrakiller.com/2013/05/happy-anniversary.html
Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
Good, that probably means the situation's been resolved. Your schadenfruede is over.
PC
I am not William West. I have never met any of the people on this blog, nor Harlow, Joe, Sean, Grant or even Robert Wagner. I am merely somebody who has been following this case since May of 2007.
Anonymous One
" Anonymous said..
PC
I am not William West
Please stop bothering PC with reality
OK, moving on to a new thread!
http://silenceofthechinchillas.blogspot.com/2013/06/victory-day-2013-part-trois.html
Post a Comment