Thursday, June 6, 2013

Victory Day 2013, Part Trois

Update 28: I know we are going slowly through Chapter 9, but it is such a gold mine of new information that practically everything in it is comment-worthy.

Take the next section on "The hunt for trace evidence". It's one of the many reasons why any serious student of this case has to buy the book. Tucked at the end is yet another fascinating "Melnick interview with AES" tidbit.

Stop and let the implications of this all wash over you. There was a garbage bag. In this garbage bag was stuffed the Kocis-blood-splattered clothes of the murderer of Bryan Kocis. We know this bag actually exists because some California hotel (this one perhaps, where I ate a BLT 4 years ago?) actually has a record of it.

Now stop and ponder the further implications of this. Who's clothes are in this bag? Could they be Joe's? Unlikely! Joe was the one who told the investigators about it! The same investigators he was trying to sell the story of him being at the Fox Ridge Inn the whole time. If the bag contained Joe's clothes splattered with Kocis' blood, Joe would have N-E-V-E-R tipped them off to it.

So, by process of elimination, whose blood-splatted clothes MUST BE in this garbage bag, currently moldering in some landfill in San Diego? Mmmm hm. Uh huh. Mmmm hm.


Update 27: The sections 'Cuadra details "the plan" for acquittal' and "Answering those nagging questions" both deal with a topic recently brought up in the comments, that being Harlow's obsession with winning the battle for public opinion.

Here we see the 'Free Harlow' t-shirts in court idea that never got off the ground, along with a wealth of other image management tips in a letter to Renee Martin. "Image matters a lot" sayeth Harlow.

Also interesting are his directives to Renee on cleaning up Joe's image, and improving his blog. Yes, commands from Harlow, micromanaging the affairs of Joe. So here we get a clear indication who really wears the pants in this relationship.

Lastly, more of Harlow's personality gets revealed in his prison blog post, a Brent-bashing tour de force where he got an opportunity to call him "pretentious", "bitchy", "bratty" and such a nonentity in the industry that Harlow had actually never heard of him until recently. All within a few short sentences! The book doesn't go into this, but I can tell you the effect his had on the blogs: Harlow's popularity soared to an all time high among BB and all the other Brent-bashers (who were more numerous back then, and vocal even beyond their numbers). They came out and cackled amongst themselves in the comment sections for days in the aftermath of this. It seems to me, this was a calculated ploy by Harlow to curry their favor.

So, why did Harlow think that "image mattered" and was critical to "the plan" for acquittal? I can think of three possible reasons:

1) He may have thought a widespread belief in his innocence in the blogs and in the media would trickle down to the jury pool in northeastern Pennsylvania (this one is, admittedly, far fetched in reality...but who knows what Harlow was thinking?);

2) He may have also needed a good public image for legal defense fundraising purposes (this one is more realistic...these donors are people who would be reading the relevant blogs); and/or

3) He may have been (wishfully) thinking ahead to his life after acquittal. He didn't want just a jury to think that he was innocent, he wanted the world to think he was innocent. In other words, he did not want to become the OJ Simpson of gay porn.

So, it could have been one, some or all of these reasons. I'm guessing probably a bit of all.


Update 26: The three-way calls. Two suspects in custody, recorded talking to themselves coordinating the fake alibis they intend to use. You know, if this were the only evidence offered to a jury, this ALONE would be enough, most likely, to get a conviction.

One other thing I'd point out is, since the nature of the relationship between Harlow and Joe has become such a hot topic in the comments as of late, these three-way calls are a marvelous sources for getting at the truth of that relationship.

The book only gives a few snippets of their interaction.; I've read more detailed accounts in the past, and I can tell you this much: Harlow and Joe bickered during those three way calls on occasion. And here's the thing: Whenever Joe snapped at Harlow, Harlow DID NOT HESITATE to snap right back.

The part quoted in the book, where Harlow is saying "I know, I know, I know...I,I,I know, I know Joe", if you read that part it's full context, Harlow is basically telling Joe to kindly STFU.

Which of course is not the kind of thing you'd expect a dominated wallflower to be saying.


Update 25: After detailing Harlow's failed alibi attempts, PC systematically eviscerates Joe's alibi (of sorts) that he was at the Fox Ridge Inn the whole time. There is simply no doubt Joe was at the murder scene with Harlow (Joe's constant denials, to this day, notwithstanding).

Then we get to Joe's prison buddies. After re-reading this section, I've come to a BIG conclusion: I've decided that the Riggs account is actually the true and accurate account of exactly what happened, of who was where and of who did what on the day of the murder.

Here's the Riggs account of what Joe told him. Pay close attention class, because THIS is undoubtedly how it all really happened:

1) Harlow went into Kocis' home for the appointment, alone
2) Joe waited in the car in the driveway
3) Harlow killed Kocis, alone
4) Harlow came out and got Joe
5) Together they moved Kocis' body to the couch, ransacked the house, and set it on fire. Then fled.

As the book notes, Riggs had only a paltry 7 months left on a sentence for a minor parole violation, so, he had little incentive to elaborately make all this stuff up. In addition, everything he says is in 100% accord with the evidence as we know it...everything fits to a tee. And third, he knew details even the police hadn't found out yet.

And as for Joe, everything he's saying to Riggs is prejudicial to himself, including the admission, that Joe has always DESPERATELY and falsely denied to this day, that he was at the murder scene. So, there is no motive for Joe to by lying to Riggs about this.

This is it folks. Final version, end of story, mystery solved, case closed.


Update 24: Harlow's hunt for an alibi section brings up the mysterious Mitch Hal(l)ford. Re-reading all this brings up two questions in my mind:

1) How many l's are really in his name? The book has it down with one l, but then there's counter-indications such as this. It's been spelled both ways in the Kocisphere in the past, IIRC.

2) Does anyone else find it odd...nay, unbelievable...that a person would be approached to give a fake alibi for someone, thus almost certainly indicating that that someone is as guilty as sin...and then turn around and give that person $70,000 to defend themselves in court? In other words, to donate that much money to a legal defense fund, shouldn't you actually believe that someone to be innocent?

I find it very hard to believe anyone could think someone is innocent after being asked to lie to the police about an alibi for them, and I also find it hard to believe someone would spend $70,000 on someone they had CLEAR SIGNS was indeed guilty.


Update 23: Now we move on to Chapter 9. This is the first of the trial (and pre-trial) parts of the book, which actually takes up about 40% of it.

First up the lawyer roulette section. The moral of the story here is, if you're going to commit a crime in a small rural county, where every lawyer has been in every other lawyer's law firm and/or worked for the same client at one time or the other, make SURE you commit the crime by yourself, with no co-conspirator. Otherwise you're looking for trouble!

The Fannick controversy is covered here in detail, in which it was claimed attorney Demetrius Fannick met with Joe eight times in prison and except for talking about fees, never once discussed the case with him. You can view my dramatic recreation of those conversations here.

And the book has an interesting new revelation about the incident, duly footnoted as "Kerekes interview with AES, 7-2-09":

"Kerekes would later contradict himself again, admitting in a state prison interview that he lied in court, and that his discussions with Fannick went far beyond the fee structure."

In other words, Joe is now admitting to committing an act of perjury. I guess we know now why Fannick did not testify under oath on the matter (as if we didn't know already). It also brings up an interesting contemporary issue: If Joe committed perjury, and we assume he did so at Fannick's behest, well, let's just say this is something the Luzerne County DA and/or state bar of Pennsylvania may now wish to take an interest in.

186 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jim:

In Nov. 2007 Harlow had been without an effective attorney for about six months. The US Supreme Court has ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that defendants in all cases must be provided counsel. Harlow had also not waived his speedy trial rights. The judge and prosecution should have been VERY VERY CONCERNED that Harlow had counsel. Instead they went out of their way to disqualify Fannick who was the only counsel of all the lawyers Harlow had to actually successfully defend a murder case.

Joe had waived any objection. That should have been sufficient especially since Fannick had never been hired by Joe. In this instance Harlow did not do anything wrong, but it was Harlow who gets deprived of the one lawyer who could have help him all because the Prosecution felt that Joe "might" have been able to appeal.

Even after Joe plead quilty to the Murder trial and waived his rights to appeal, the court barred Fannick from representing Harlow.

The result may still have been same with Harlow getting life without parole, but the disqualification of Fannick was clearly wrong.

Anonymous One

jim said...

"Harlow had also not waived his speedy trial rights."

I'm pretty sure he did waive it, early on.

"The result may still have been same with Harlow getting life without parole ..."

Unless Fannick can also walk on water, I'm certain it would have been the same.

Anonymous said...

getting a guy caught with dead bodies buried in his front yard convicted only of abusing a corpse is the legal equivalent of walking on water.

Anonymous said...

fannick was / is chief "interim" public defender for luzerne county. melnick is just another ada

Geoff Harvard said...

Dem pooooo sweeet innercent little Trayvon, I mean Harlow. Booooo, hoooo, emeffin hoooo! Dey don't let him have no defense council or nuffin! Boooo hooo hooo! He wrongerly convicted!

Anonymous said...

I would say he waived additional speedy trial time when his new lawyers requested a delay in the trial (about two months before the actual trial in 2009). Not sure how speedy trial works, I assume that in the case of misdemeanors, a trial has to take place in a certain period of time or get dismissed, and more serious alleged crimes would allow for a longer period of time. I would assume that aggravated arson and first degree murder would have the longest period of time for the prosecution to go to trial. Since Harlow was facing 12 counts (a mixture of misdemeanors and felonies), I would suppose that a motion might be made to have the lesser charges dismissed.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Harlow Cuadra aside, the situation in Luzurne County with conflict counsel is absurd. Each counsel is paid a flat fee (retainer?) by the county no matter how many cases the counsel represents. Since Luzerne seems to have proportionally high number of murder cases, some of these counsels were being overwhelmed with 12 or more simultaneous grave criminal clients at the same time. At those levels it becomes impossible to even properly interview the defendant let alone read all of the evidence being provided. There is never any time for that counsel to interview key witnesses prior to trial.

Luzerne should change this by paying each attorney by the hours spent on each cases involved (like my state). Naturally they also have to protect against excessive billing.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

the position of "Conflict Counsel" is not advertized publicly, the president judge of luzerne county had the power to simply pick lawyers and make them members of the conflict counsel pool of lawyers. like conahan picked his brother-in-law as chief psychiatrist doing evals on juveniles for juvenile court.

the term "conflict" here meaning that the public defender's office has a conflict of interest representing the defendant - as in a lawyer in the public defender's office was bryan kocis' lawyer.

Anonymous said...

if the position of "conflict counsel" was overwhelming and underpaid, it is doubtful that conahan would have bother reserving for himself the power to unilaterally appooint lawyers to the pool.

Anonymous said...

odds are, there are relatively few cases in luzerne county where the public defender had a conflict of interest representing the defendant and "the conflict counsel pool" was just another of many ways conahan diverted money from the county to his pocket

Anonymous said...

it is likely that lawyers in the conflict counsel pool were getting paid X amounts of money even if they had no cases. atypical situations like cuadra and maybe selenski may have forced conflict counsel money to be spent on actual defense efforts. conahan tried to revert cuadra's defense costs back onto the public defender but the public defender refused to represent cuadra - there being two lawyers in the office who had represented Kocis.

Anonymous said...

CASE IN POINT: when the public defender's office refused to represent defendants because of lack of funding, the luzerne county court didn't assign them conflict counsel lawyers - even though the LC court was paying a bunch of conflict counsel lawyers.

likely that "the conflict counsel pool" is fannick's suprise card since around cuadra's case, all of those conflict counsels had to have been appointed unilaterally by conahan.

jim said...

Interesting speculation about the nature of the conflict councils in Luzerne County, which I really don't know anything about so I won't comment.

One final comment about Fannick, and that was Joe's waiver was irrelevant. I can't remember the precise reasoning behind this, except that it was settled law on this point and thus not really an issue.

What was an issue, THE issue in fact, was whether Joe talked about the murder during those eight visits, thus creating an attorney-client-like situation. As as we can see from the book, Joe is now throwing Harlow, Fannick and everyone else who claimed they only talked about fees and nothing more back then under the bus.

Anonymous said...

PA code has a written description of what actions by a lawyer establish an attorney client relationship with a client.

Anonymous said...

Jim:

1) There was no client-attorney relationship established.
2) If there had been then Joe could waive it.
3) Attorneys when discussing with clients fees, also are sizing up the client to determine whether or not they want to represent them.
4) Most likely Fannick was able to size up Joe right away and saw what a fruitcake he was. Most likely he quoted a fee that was beyond Joe's family's ability to pay as a means of disengaging him.
5) Most codes require a written agreement to establish the terms of an agreement between Attorney and Client. Once that is signed then Attorney is bound to client and can not be released without court permission or the client's release or possibily both.
Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Besides the only party that can move to have a lawyer disqualified is the alledgely injured party, in this case Joe. The state was never an injured party and had no standing to raise the issue.

What surprised me was that Fannick did not take this issue to the US Federal Court System. Most likely he is not a member of that bar. But there are precedents in his favor in jurisdictions outside Pennsylvania which the Federal Court could look to.

Anonymous One

jim said...

Obviously, Judge O looked at points 1 thru 6, then looked at actual PA law, and rejected each point in turn. The fact that there was no successful appeal speaks volumes to the correctness of those decisions.

As the book portrays, EVERYTHING turned on one question only: Did they talk about more than fees during their first visit, then their second visit, then their third visit, then their fourth visit, then their fifth visit, then their sixth visit, then their seventh visit, and then finally, their eight visit.

Anonymous said...

Jim:

The Judge formerly was the District Attorney for Luzerne County. His rulings reflected what he would have wanted if he was prosecuting the case.

He also showed his prejudice by asking Fannick to testify under oath. If Fannick did that, then whatever he said would render him a witness in the case, and he could no longer represent either defendant. Counsel cannot be effective counsel if they are also witnesses in that case.

The DA wanted Fannick out of the case because Fannick actually had won a dismissal of murder charges in another criminal case, a very rare instance in Luzerne County.

Appeals of a Judges discretion
are rarely, in ever, overruled by a higher state court. So relying on this is not justification for a erroneous decision. An appeal should have been made on this issue to the Federal Court where such precedents exist to overturn denial of counsel. The Federal Judge is also not elected but appointed for life so he/she is not beholden to the system does not have to worry about offending the judge who made the descretionary decision.

Anonymous One

jim said...

"He also showed his prejudice by asking Fannick to testify under oath. If Fannick did that, then whatever he said would render him a witness in the case, and he could no longer represent either defendant. Counsel cannot be effective counsel if they are also witnesses in that case."

No, I remember this controversy as it was unfolding live years ago, and this was never an issue. Giving sworn testimony at a procedural hearing does not make one a "witness" to the case.

Fannick himself admitted as much when he said afterwards he misjudged the weight his non-testimony had on the eventual decision. He never brought up this Catch-22 you're theorizing into existence.

Anonymous said...

giving sworn testimony of any kind means you can be cross examined by the opposing party. fannick is still going strong contrary to cuadra's judge and melnick

Anonymous said...

cuadra's judge olszenski claimed that it was conahan who leaked the photo of olszenski with a drug deal at conahan's florida condo - this fact was well reported in lc newspapers. yet the book "cobra killer" still decided to claim that the leak was by olszenski's "political rivals". a leak by conahan obviously carries the assumption that conahan was pissed off that he was being prosecuted when his buddy olszenski wasn't.

Anonymous said...

I think anonymous comments shouldn't be allowed here.

will g said...

I'm extremely pissed at you Jim, I JUST discovered this Part 3 post, you should have directed people to it at the end of the last thread, which is the address I had bookmarked. It never occurred to me to check for a Part 3. Instead, I thought you just disabled comments and disappeared forever! Grrrr...

will g said...

BTW I still think you should put comment at the end of the last thread about Part 3, apparently Anonymous One is the only person who's aware of it, aside from me now.

jim said...

Ooops! Sorry Will, I will do that now (and in the future ...). Heh!

will g said...

I had only skimmed the thread when I said only Anonymous One was aware of this post, now I see Geoff and Peter Everhard were also here. (The Anonymous June 14, 2013 at 3:47 AM comment that amusingly and ironically says anonymous comments shouldn't be allowed is actually by the person who tipped me off to the existence of Pt. 3.) I do feel rather stupid for not checking for a new post when I saw the previous thread had been closed, DUH. Tomorrow perhaps I can actually move on and comment on the substance of this week-old update.

will g said...

I'm still trying to get up to speed on this subject matter, which frankly gives me a headache, but perusing the comments I just had to first respond to this:

a leak by conahan obviously carries the assumption that conahan was pissed off that he was being prosecuted when his buddy olszenski [sic] wasn't.

Peter Peter Peter, what are we going to do with you? There is absolutely NO evidence that Olszewski -- and if you're going to smear him, at least learn how to spell his name correctly -- is or was guilty of anything he should be prosecuted for, despite your valiant efforts to tar him and everyone else in the Luzerne County judicial system with the same brush as the two corrupt judges.

Fannick's disqualification was one of the main points in Harlow's appeals, and despite what Anonymous One said, appeals courts overturn trial judges' decisions all the time, that's their main function and it is not "rare" for them to do so. So this issue has been litigated all the way up to the PA Supreme Court. I have no expectation that a federal court would rule any differently. But Harlow should knock himself out if he thinks he has a shot there.

Anonymous said...

Will:

State Appeals Courts overrule trial judges on what are called substantive issues, ie. instructions to juries, but rarely on discretionary issues such as admission/non-admission of evidence and length of sentences. Disqualifying an attorney from representing a client is a discretionary issue.

The general rule is that the trial judge was there and the appellate court was not and a judge should be able to conduct a trial without fear that every little decision by him will be appealed.

In the Federal System, the judge has to weigh the state court ruling versus the United States Constitution, Laws and rulings which can vary considerably from the State precedents. They can also look to rulings from other states and federal courts and if they find the State Laws to violate the Federal Laws, they often will throw out the state laws. The history of segregation laws in the deep south is a prime example, but another one specific to Pennsylvania was when the 3rd Federal Court of Appeals threw out the entire post judgement garnishment procedure in Civil Cases through out the nation.

Anonymous One

PS I go to the SOTC home page first, and then follow the latest posting by Jim.

will g said...

Anonymous One, if you Google it you can find examples of appellate courts overturning rulings on disqualifying attorneys. Most of a trial judges' rulings are "discretionary," and defense lawyers routinely make objections to them so that they can be appealed. They wouldn't bother if it was such a waste of time.

Unfortunately I never check the home page, I always have the current post bookmarked.

will g said...

Fannick met with Joe for a total of five hours. How in the world does a discussion about his fee stretch on for five hours? Even though only Joe was under oath when he made that outrageous claim, Fannick's refusal to take the stand and make the same claim, and his willingness to suborn perjury, correctly played into the judge's decision to disqualify him.

If this issue were ever to make it to federal court, someone should send them a copy of the book, with Joe's admission of perjury. Of course a known liar's statements aren't worth much, but he really has no reason to implicate himself in yet another crime if it isn't the truth, so I think his statement can be taken seriously. Barring that, his angry outburst in court -- "If you try to use anything we spoke about, I'll have you removed" -- before he changed his story and committed perjury, is part of the court record.

There are no constitutional protections that allow one to retain an attorney with a clear conflict of interest. Frankly, I'm surprised Harlow even wanted to retain him, knowing that Joe had almost certainly ratted him out to Fannick. In fact, I bet he really didn't, this is just a convenient issue to hang an appeal on.

Anonymous said...

" Disqualifying an attorney from representing a client is a discretionary issue"

surely you jest.

the disqualification of an attorney may not be an immediately appealable order in PA - meaning that Cuadra and fannick would have had to wait until the case was over to appeal the disqualification of fannick. fannick may be of the opinion that there are better grounds for an appeal than the denial of a particular counsel.

the 2nd circuit court of appeals has affirmed a district court judge holding that CHOICE of counsel is part of the constitutional right to counsel - this in a case in which the US made it financially difficult / impossible for a defendant to afford his attorney of choice.

Anonymous said...

If there is no 'substantive' reason for a courts decision (to disqulify a representative in this case)than that dicision itself is questionable and may be grounds for appeal. If the government places its own judgement over the judgement of a citizen for no sustantive reason, that judgement creates a clear civil rights guestion which is obvious grounds for appeal.

The changes in representation and unecessary delay of trial in this case will remain problems. The general culture of corruption in Luzern County courts at the time add an interesting backdrop. I do not want to see Harlow set free but niether would I want to be treated as he was. I would rather he be set free than allow courts this level of 'discretion.'

Albert

will g said...

"How in the world does a discussion about his fee stretch on for five hours?" I naively asked.

I should have clicked on the link in your update.

Anonymous said...

Actually to discuss a fee, one has to ask quite a number of questions. Those questions include do you want to go to trial or plea bargain, are there witnesses I (the attorney) need to see. How much money of my fee are you able to raise now? How is that payment going to be made.

The client should ask a lot of questions. What is your experience? What Law School did you go to and how long have you been practicing criminal law?
Have you have tried any death penalty cases? What was the outcome of those cases? Can I pay in installments or does it all have to be up front?

They can also talk about other subjects. The Lawyer will want to put the client at ease. The Client may want attention and will tell the attorney about the horrors of his/her imprisonment. {After all the lawyer may be only one who will speak to the client).

There can also be other people that need to be looked after while the client is in jail. Also the possibility of bail needs to be explained.

Through indirect questions none of which touches on specific evidence both the lawyer and client feel each other out.

I think Fannick came close to representing Joe, and this is why there were so many reasons, but eventually, the agreed fee was not obtainable, or Joe's sterling personality shone through letting Fannick to realize this was not a person he would enjoy representing.
{ie Joe started making threats to Fannick or losing his temper over other things). There is even the possibility that Joe felt that Fannick got Harlow off, this would result in a better outcome for him, and suggested the switch.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

reasons in the next to last sentence should have been sessions.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Anonymous One -

Your scenario takes them well beyond discussion of his fee. If all of these other subjects were brought up during those five hours, why didn't they disclose that to the judge to make their story slightly more credible? None of that involves discussing the substance of the case, so it would have done their argument no harm to be honest about it. Instead, they both chose to maintain that they "limited their eight discussions to how to pay Fannick for defending Kerekes."

Let's not forget Joe ADMITS in the book that he lied on the stand about this. Did he say that just for the hell of it? If you really think he means that he just didn't fully disclose the kind of introductory small talk you describe, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Anonymous said...

Olszewski: Photo released 'to embarrass me'
http://citizensvoice.com/news/olszewski-photo-released-to-embarrass-me-1.281962

"Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. said a photo of him partying with a convicted drug dealer and former judge/accused racketeer Michael T. Conahan was leaked to media outlets Thursday to damage his retention campaign.

Olszewski said he was unaware of either man's alleged criminal activities when the photo was taken in 2005.

"It's obviously being done to embarrass me before the election," Olszewski said of the photo, which shows him, Conahan, the convicted dealer and a Luzerne County attorney holding drinks and liquor bottles in a Florida condominium that Conahan allegedly used to launder kickbacks in the kids-for-cash case.

In a tense, hour-long interview with The Citizens' Voice editors and reporters Thursday, Olszewski said he believes the June 2005 photo was mailed anonymously to the media by Conahan and/or his codefendant, former county Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., to hurt his bid for a second 10-year term in November."


as stated, even though the above is readily available if you google conahan flordia condo and olszewski, the book Cobra Killer elected to claim that the photo of olszewski was leaked to the press by olszewski's "political rivals" - i.e. to be misleading about Olszewski's connection to relationship with conahan.

then there is the statement in the book that "Bryan registered Cobra in Delaware" which may fly over the head of a lot of people but which is clearly misleading when you know that there was more than one LLC named Cobra Video.

why would some guy who seemingly crawled out from under some rock in Virginia be so invested in trying to whitewash Luzerne County and Cobra Video.

will g said...

Mr. Everhard, I just read that article and it indeed describes a political rivalry between Olszewski and Ciavarella, one of the two corrupt judges. This book includes a very short paragraph in the "where are they now" last chapter about Olszewski losing the election, which is where that description that so offends you appears. The fact is nobody knows who leaked that photo, notwithstanding Olszewski's "belief" that it was one of the two judges. Obviously whoever released it wanted to damage his political campaign, so "political rival" is a pretty safe way to describe this unknown party, without speculating about who it might be, as Olszewski did.

If people want to read a detailed book about Kids for Cash they can order that one, which you have duly plugged on your site. This book isn't about that, and was never intended to be. Sorry.

How is saying "Bryan registered Cobra in Delaware" misleading when it happens to be a fact? I have never understood why you keep harping on this "two Cobra Videos" business. As far as I can tell, you think it means the lawsuit against Sean was null and void, because the wrong entity was suing him. Or somesuch. BFD.

If you think these two things render this book a "whitewash," so be it. You're entitled to your opinion. Now maybe you can stop repeating yourself. As for your insinuation about Peter Conway and his motives, all I can do is laugh.

Anonymous said...

Will G:

Did Joe lie in the book? Does Joe lie? Unfortunately, he does, to a degree that strains credulity. We also know that the statement he gave when he plea dealed may not have been "totally accurate".

Whether or not Joe and Fannick had the discussions I described previously is unknown. I just raised the issue to show that it was "possible" to have these long interviews without discussing the case. I wasn't there and Fannick has been honoring the confidentially of what was said so the answer is beyond our reach, just like the real reason Joe killed Bryan.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Yes Anonymous One, anything is possible. But if Joe and Fannick had that type of wide-ranging conversation about things that didn't pertain to the case, why would they conceal that from the judge? In fact, it would have bolstered their credibility to disclose it. Instead, the impression they made with everyone who heard their "we only discussed the fee" story, including most importantly the judge, is that they were lying. That was almost certainly a contributing factor in Fannick's disqualification.

Joe had much more reason to lie on the stand, when he was presumably trying to help Harlow, than he would to lie in his interview with Stoner and impugn his own character and admit to committing another crime. What would be his motive to do that?

jim said...

Yeah, that's the thing about Joe (AND Harlow, for that matter), they've lied so many times that you really have to look carefully at their motives and/or other circumstantial evidence to ascertain the truth of whatever they happen to be saying at any given time.

Here, we have a classic example of that conundrum. On Day One (courtroom outburst) Joe says one thing, on Day Two (Fannick hearing) he does a full 180 and says the opposite, then on Day 3 (book interview) he makes it a full 360 and goes back to what he said on Day One. So what's the truth? How can one tell?

Like Will says, you have to look elsewhere at motives (or the lack thereof) for them saying things for important hints and clues. And as Will points, out, there's not much motive for Joe at this point to be making this stuff up, except maybe out of mischief. Which is not a terribly strong motive, especially when you consider he's also maligning himself in the process.

jim said...

That being said, it would be nice to know the real reason why Fannick switched (or was switched?) from Joe to Harlow. That's one of the mysteries of the case the book wasn't able to answer.

A-1 thinks Fannick interviewed Joe and came around to the impression Joe wasn't worth defending. That's possible I suppose.

Personally, my own theory is that it probably had more to do with the $70K donated by Mitch Hallford; there are indications in the book Hallford was not enamored of Joe to the extent he was allegedly enamored with Harlow, and perhaps the money came in with strings it be spent on Harlow and not Joe? Thus necessitating the Fannick switch.

Whatever the reason, it was a self-created disaster they all SHOULD HAVE KNOWN was going to cause problems. A first year law student could see the obvious conflict here.

will g said...

Update 24:

Wait, the book identifies him as "Howard Mitchell Halford of Atlanta, Georgia." I assume he lived in Virginia Beach at the time this was all going on, so that seems odd, even if he's originally from Atlanta. I always thought this guy must be some gazillionaire, to be able to throw away $70K on such a lost cause, but that's a rather cheap house, so guess not.

Your question about why he'd donate to someone who asked him to lie for him seems to have two answers: A) He was in love with him! and B) He talks about feeling threatened by Joe and "being concerned for his and Harlow's welfare in this regard." So my theory is that perhaps Harlow whispered to him a version of his "I just went for an audition and Joe went crazy and killed him" story that he told on the stand? It's a theory anyway.

And then there's Nep...

jim said...

Yeah, here's his LinkedIn, he's an apparently very successful District Sales Manager at US Foods: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/howard-hallford/62/887/b39

will g said...

Not only is the spelling of his last name confusing, but I'm still confused about his place of residence. I just watched a TV report about the day he testified, and they too identify him as an "Atlanta businessman." It's 9 hours from Atlanta to Virginia Beach. What gives? Also, apparently he plundered his retirement funds to come up with that $70K, so he's no Mr. Moneybags, but he is an idiot.

jim said...

This link shows him as having multiple residences:

"Howard Has Lived In
Virginia Beach, VA
Atlanta, GA
Virginia Beach, VA
Raleigh, NC"

http://www.intelius.com/people/Howard-Hallford/080b10500zp

jim said...

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I don't believe this $70K ultimately came from Hal(l)ford. I believe this was hush money paid by a yet unknown celebrity and/or politician client of Harlow, using Hal(l)ford as the go-between.

I've tried searching political contribution databases, to see if Hal(l)ford may have heavily donated to and thus perhaps been socially connected to any big name US Senators or the like. I have not been successful in this, perhaps because I'm not very good at searching these sorts of databases. Maybe one of you commenteers out there may have better luck?

The task is made more difficult due to all the confusing variations of his name (which starts to make me think all the name confusion may have been intentional).

will g said...

You may have said it before, but it's the first time I've heard it. Not sure why you think it's so unlikely the money came from Halford himself. You really think it's more likely that he agreed to act as a front for someone else and commit perjury about spending his own money, a lie that could be easily uncovered through bank records? That seems a bit far-fetched to me.

Also this "hush money" wouldn't have shut Joe up if he wanted to divulge the name of this mystery celebrity. And of the two, he's the one more likely to open his big mouth.

Albert said...

The obvious problem with relying on bank records is that not all money is kept in 'banks' that keep records.

Albert

Anonymous said...

Actually, I believe that Halford could be collecting money from Harlow's friends. Some of that money could Halford's own. Keep in mind he said he donated $75,000 of his own money, but it is quite likely that more has been paid over, so he would still be somewhat telling the truth as to his testimony.

Anonymous One .


PS I like A-1 as nickname, but I will stick with Anonymous One on general principals.

Anonymous said...

As to why Fannick did not reveal the truth to the Judge as it would boost credibility- This was not the first time Fannick had been before him. Knowing Olszewski's character, Fannick knows the Judge is already prejudiced on this subject and anything he said would be taken out of context so it was better not to say anything.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Ugh, I wish I could delete the second paragraph of my 10:16 AM comment, it's just awful gobbledygook. I was barely awake. What I really think is that Halford probably did realize Harlow was guilty but thought he was forced into it by Joe. He called Harlow a "battered spouse" on the stand and talked about him following Joe's orders "like a puppy." That's why he felt he should help his inamorato, even though he might be technically guilty.

Anonymous said...

As to Joe's motives about lying now, I think it goes to his basic character, which is not very nice at all. First, I think he enjoys scamming people including the love of his life, Harlow, as long as it does not cost him anything. Second, the relationship between Joe and Harlow is complicated as are all relationships maybe even more. Prior to the murder, Joe needed Harlow as his chief ASSet in his prostitution ring, but Joe at the same time was envious of Harlow's youth and greater popularity with the clients.

After the murder, he may have promised Harlow if Harlow kept quiet , Joe would quarantee to Harlow that if it came to trial, he, Joe, would testify in Harlow's defense.

At Harlow's trial, Joe reversed himself, and decided to pull his testimony (after getting a free TV according to the blogs at the time)at the worse possible time for Harlow's defense. Joe probably decided if he was going to be in jail for the rest of his life, why should Harlow not suffer along with him.

Then when the possibility of money being paid to Joe surfaced (at least in Joe's mind) Joe felt that testifying might be a good thing.

Jim has already shown to my satisfaction that Joe is border line insane. Joe often acts without considering the ultimate consequence of what that action will incur. A prime example that comes to mind is Joe's interview with the media upon arrival in Pennsylvania. This is where he places Harlow in Bryan's home (he smelt a fire and left immediately) thus blowing most of Harlow's defense. Otherwise the prosecution would have had produce evidence that Harlow had actually been in the home. Getting Harlow off on this point would have worked to Joe's benefit since the prosecution would have had to prove that Joe had gone inside Bryan's home. But Joe does not think things through to a natural conclusion.

Anonymous One

jim said...

I'm of like mind with Albert, concealing the money trail would not be difficult.

Anonymous said...

Originally Joe had contacted individuals to give Harlow an alibi. Halford and Nep were the two exceptions.

Often, people are caught covering up their actions rather than by the actual actions themselves. Think about politicians and Watergate. Harlow should have been aware that a trial in Luzerne County would have him as an outsider accused of murdering a local resident. He was also a gay man in a straight laced conservative region of the country.
Harlow also is prone to be loose about facts even under oath. So it did not seem wrong to him to take the easiest way out by procuring an alibi.

So while extremely damaging to his credibility as a witness, the subornation of perjury is not real proof of his having killed Bryan. It is however a reason why he deserved at least some jail time out of the events that took place.

Anonymous One

will g said...

I don't think anyone's claiming that Harlow's alibi-shopping is by itself proof of his guilt. It's merely one piece in a giant mountain of circumstantial evidence that put together is quite damning.

will g said...

Regarding what I said about bank records, if Halford gave Harlow $70K of his own money, it would definitely be reflected in the statements for whatever account he was withdrawing the money from. (I swear I read or heard that he testified it was from his retirement fund, but I can't find that source now.) I didn't mean that this hypothetical money-laundering scheme would leave a paper trail. I assume our paranoid mystery celebrity would be smarter than that.

will g said...

Update 25:

Case closed!

I have a feeling Anonymous One will have something to say about that...And Anonymous Two has something to say about this subject as well.

I see that all of the book's information about the three jailhouse informants comes from the Probable Cause Affadavit. None of them were called to testify against Harlow, which is a shame, since as you point out at least Riggs is very credible and would be unimpeachable on the stand. All three were on the witness list. Oh well.

Albert said...

I think the West Virginia phone book was on the witness list.

Anonymous said...

Will G:

You are right as you often are. I do have something to say about this. Yes, Riggs is probably telling the truth as to WHAT JOE TOLD HIM. However did JOE tell the whole truth, part of the truth or just conning him as Joe is want to do.

The one thing that rebuts this scenario is the phone call between Harlow and Joe three minutes before the fire broke out. If they were in the house together why would they need to call each other at that time. One was in the house and one was in the car when that phone call was made. My money is on Harlow in the car and Joe cleaning up or firing up as the case might be.

Harlow did say in the Black Beach tapes "Then my guy came around and things went crazy". He also testified that after the murder he went directly to the car and waited for Joe there.

There was also the jail house conversation where Joe said he was going to throw everything on the "kid" meaning Harlow. Not sure if that was a different conversation or part of Riggs' affidavit.

Unfortunately for Harlow, going to car after the murder might help with the Arson charges, but not the murder charges which carry the life without parole sentences. And as far as we know, no witnesses to state who was in the car.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

There is one fact that Jim did not mention that might strengthen his argument. When the fire was over and they discovered Bryan, PC stated that there was a melted plastic container which I assume was the container of a gallon or more of gasoline.

I can picture Bryan opening the door for Harlow and stating "I see you have your overnight bag, and what is that gallon container in your other hand?" Harlow replies "I want to make a hot scene in my screen test". And Bryan "the trusting soul that he is", lets Harlow and container into the house.

So Jim's scenario of Joe joining Harlow at the murder makes sense. My argument is that Joe got into the house before the murder and the gasoline can indicates premeditation on his part to at least torch the place afterwards.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Re your first comment Anonymous One: Why would Joe pull a "con" that does absolutely nothing to exonerate himself? What's in it for him? (The same question I asked when you said he might be conning Stoner by admitting to perjury.) Con games usually have some kind of desired outcome that benefits the con artist. The only likely outcome here is that Joe's prison buddies would help send him to death row.

If you're going to concede that Riggs is telling the truth about what Joe told him (which surprised me a little), then it really requires that logic be thrown out the window not to accept this as the truth about what went down.

jim said...

Yeah the thing here is Joe, for ONCE, admitted to being at the house. In all other instances I know of, he's practically has a fetish for insisting he was back at the Fox Ridge Inn the whole time.

In the next section we see Joe trying to cram the Joe-at-Fox-Ridge story down Renee's and Harlow's throat during the 3-way calls, while they were discussing plans A through Z, for example.

So, if was going to lie to Riggs, why only a partial lie? That makes no sense. Especially since the one thing we know he told the truth about to Riggs is the one thing his is absolutely ADAMANT about lying about, to everyone else on the planet.

So, the conclusion has to be he told Riggs the straight truth, all the way through.

It seems to me, Joe was in the same cell with this guy for over a month, and some sort of bond of trust developed. And in a mood of introspective weakness at one point, truthfully unburdened the story of what happened.

Anonymous said...

Guys:

Haven't you said Joe was crazy. Jim have you not prove it in one of your previous posts? One definition of crazy is to do illogical things. Hence, Joe contradicts himself because he believes no one remembers or knows about his previous statements.

As far a partial lie to Riggs, Joe wants to show Riggs how smart Joe is. How he can pin this murder solely on Harlow. Also when does a guy like Joe trust anyone enough to say I am a murderer. After all if you were in a cell with Joe would you sleep well with someone who not only burnt down a building but did it cover up his own felony? Joe wanted something from Riggs his approval for how smart Joe was, not his fear.

Lets not forget one other fact, 28 stab wounds to Bryan AFTER his throat has been cut. This requires a frenic mad frenzy to do this in a relatively short period of time. Who is more likely to have do this, a crazy Joe or a lazy laid back individual like Harlow. You can also ask why the 28 stabs? This sounds like a revenge on the deceases. Revenge by Joe because Bryan wanted sex with Harlow without paying Joe for it, or Harlow because he did not think Bryan was dead. Harlow the ex-medic, who probably realized that a head that was almost completely separated from the torso and hanging by a shred of flesh probably was dead??

Anonymous One

jim said...

Harlow himself explained, quite famously on the BBTs, why this was a crime of passion to him:

"Ummm, actually, seeing that fucker go down, actually it's sick, but it made me feel better inside. It almost felt like I got revenge and I know that sounds really fucked up, really fucked up, but still I couldn't sleep for a week."

will g said...

As far a partial lie to Riggs, Joe wants to show Riggs how smart Joe is. How he can pin this murder solely on Harlow.

Except he did no such thing, he explained the motive for the murder to Riggs and how he accompanied Harlow to the house for the sole purpose of killing Kocis, while he waited in the car. He "pinned the murder" on both of them, even if Harlow did the actual deed.

will g said...

Unless I mistinterpreted your comment Anonymous One. If you mean he was showing Riggs how he COULD "pin the murder solely on Harlow" by lying to him about Harlow doing all the stabbing, that's simply not something he ever says he's planning to do. If he wanted to brag to Riggs about hatching such a diabolical scheme, don't you think he would have mentioned it?

I think you're twisting yourself into logical pretzels trying to find a way to cast Joe's words in a light most favorable to Harlow. The fact is, as I've said many times, it really doesn't matter who did the stabbing. Joe's jailhouse confessions make it clear they're both equally guilty.

jim said...

"Joe's jailhouse confessions make it clear they're both equally guilty."

True. The question of who did what is really for academic purposes.

will g said...

New York's hottest club is...

(Madonna just had a party there.)

Anonymous said...

One question I would ask is why would Joe and Harlow moved the body according to your scenario. Did they think he was uncomfortable on the floor after his head was hanging by a shred of flesh and he had been stabbed 28 times?

I always felt that he was sliced by the knife from behind while he was sitting on the couch (Harlow's testimony to the contrary), and left there. No need to move the body.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

I think there is a difference as to who did kill Bryan? If Harlow did it, end of story.

If Joe did it, then did Harlow become an accessory before the fact or afterwards? I know Jim and Will are convinced he must of had preknowledge of the crime. I am not sure of that. Nagging persons have a way of causing others to tune them out. Secretive, sly persons (USERS) who want to manipulate others don't always tell the used person of their entire plans.

If Harlow did not know in advance about the murder, you can be sure though that a plan was discussed that was criminal or borderline criminal. Joe could talked about an undercover operation where Harlow was to keep Bryan occupied while Joe searched for evidence that could be used to either blackmail Bryan or help Sean and Grant against Bryan legally. Or Joe and Harlow could be interested in stealing "the large sums of money that such a such a successful producer of gay porn films must have in the house". Finding neither money nor blackmail material, Joe decides to kill Bryan to avenge his disappointment. (I think Joe always intended to burn down Bryan's House to cover up the crime).

However, when Harlow failed to contact the police after the murder, he definitely became an accomplise after the fact, and may have been guilty also of felony murder. {In this scenario, Harlow may have thought that he was completely innocent, even though we know differently}.

So it does make a difference who did the slicing, dicing and flambe-ing?

Finally, should some time in the distant future, Harlow comes up before the parole board, it could make a difference. Despite the sentence of life without parole, this is only a recomendation of the court which may not be adhered to.

Anonymous One

will g said...

You have to willfully ignore almost all of the evidence in this case to even entertain the possibility that Harlow didn't have "preknowledge of the crime."

jim said...

I'm not sure that's correct re: life w/o parole in PA: http://www.reconstructioninc.org/drupal/node/54

jim said...

Here's a petition to change that (far short of the desired signatures): http://www.change.org/petitions/parole-eligibility-for-life-sentences-after-25-years-we-want-pa-s-general-assembly-to-change-legislation-of-life-sentences

Anonymous said...

I think that eventually the eligibility for parole for life sentences will pass, or the governor will commute long sentences for criminals who have behaved well in prison for two reasons:

1) to relive overcrowding in prisons.
2) to encourage lifers to behave in prison.

Anonymous One


Anonymous said...

There is evidence of preknowledge that I do consider damaging. The purchase of a "Pennsylvania" based cell phone. The rental of a car to go to the location and the use of an alias by Harlow.

Whatever was being planned, there was fear of retaliation if found out.

The question was what was being planned? I think that Harlow and Joe had different agendas and up until they reached Bryan's home were playing each other off with a common story that neither really believed.

The worse assumption being made is that Harlow and Joe were clones of each other and knew exactly what the other was thinking.

Anonymous One

will g said...

There is evidence of preknowledge that I do consider damaging. The purchase of a "Pennsylvania" based cell phone. The rental of a car to go to the location and the use of an alias by Harlow.

You left out the part where, the day before the murder, they're both videotaped purchasing a knife and a gun, using Harlow's credit card.

jim said...

Only slightly on topic, but I can't resist...another porn star sues over his porn name:

http://thesword.com/cody-cummings-vs-next-door-studios-i-hired-an-attorney-to-reclaim-my-name.html

Will someone down the road die as a result? Stay tuned...

Anonymous said...

Will:

The introduction of the Pawn Shop Video was reversible error. Apparently neither the gun nor the knife was used in the murder. (I believe the likely culprit was the cheese knife, though the coroner never did pin down the murder weapon). Both the gun and knife were likely left in the car that H&J drove to the rental car place which is why they surfaced in their original packaging later on. For these reasons I do not consider that to be as damaging as the other examples I cited.

One other thing the time shown on the video was the exactly the same time that the rent a car was rented. Not sure that proves much but it was something a defense attorney should have raised with the jury.

What was interesting though was that it was Harlow's credit card which Joe was carrying. Harlow was not allowed by Joe to carry his own credit cards? This is a peek into their relationship, especially to those who think that Harlow was the controlling individual.

Anonymous One

jim said...

"What was interesting though was that it was Harlow's credit card which Joe was carrying. Harlow was not allowed by Joe to carry his own credit cards? This is a peek into their relationship, especially to those who think that Harlow was the controlling individual."

Oh I wouldn't interpret it that way. As I recall, Harlow had the credit cards in his name b/c Joe couldn't get one due to his prior bankruptcy. So if Joe were to use any credit card at all it'd have to be Harlow's.

The physical necessity drove this, not any controlling factor. Which is not to say Joe wasn't controlling.

My sense of their relationship is that the murder was probably Joe's idea initially, and Harlow had to be "convinced" it was a good idea.

As I run across parts in the book that illustrate this I will point them out.

will g said...

The introduction of the Pawn Shop Video was reversible error.

Someone forgot to tell Fannick. Oops, too late.

Pg. 237, Harlow on the stand:

Cuadra said it was Kerekes who picked up a gun, the knife, the rental car, even the prepaid TracFones...

Interesting. He seemed to have forgotten he was caught on video picking up the gun and knife with Joe. Wonder why he'd lie about that?

Anonymous said...

Will:

Thank you for providing the concise statement of 2009. There is no mention of the Pawn Shop Video, so I assume you are referring to Page 237 of the trial transcript when you state "Cuadra said it was Kerekes wo picked up a gun, the knife, the rental car, even the prepaid TracFones" I think we can resolve this by saying that Cuadra meaning to say that it was Joe's idea to purchase these items. Touching a gun and knife "not used" in the murder is not a crime.

Since the statement was made at trial when Harlow was represented by other attorneys, we cannot blame Fannick for this one of Harlow's mistatements.

Also Fannick can provide a supplemental statement of facts if he wants to. He is already indicating that he will be filing additional pleadings to reflect items told to him by Harlow.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Jim:

I think you are starting to agree with my analysis of the case. Did Harlow need to "be convinced" or was there other means to get him to cooperate.

Suppose Joe laid out a scheme that required Harlow to get into Bryan's Home, but omited the little fact that Joe intended to murder Bryan or even burn his house down. "Harlow, we could really get on the good side of Sean and Grant if we could find some goods on Bryan that would force him to release Sean. It will be just like James Bond. We get outfitted like real spies; secret phones, fancy weapons, and a cool car. When we get there you'll keep him busy while I search the house. Afterwards, I will take you camping like you've been asking to do".

Of course, he could have mentioned taking other stuff. It would not be out of Harlow's character not to complain if Joe were lift some of Bryan's property.

Anonymous One


will g said...

No, it was Pg. 237 of the book. I don't have a trial transcript, I wish I did. It seems quite clear to me from the book's paraphrase that Harlow lied about not being there when the gun and knife were "picked up."

I know your second comment isn't directed to me, but the flaw in your "getting the goods on Bryan" scenario is that if that had happened, why didn't Harlow say so? It wouldn't incriminate him in the murder any more than the "I was just going for an audition" story, so why would he cover it up?

jim said...

Harlow needed to be convinced but I don't think it took all that much to convince him. And once he was on board with the idea he became an ardent participant (MANY examples can be cited, such as Harlow being the one to gloat about the murder to Brent on the phone the morning after..."Go to WNEP...").

Albert said...

Regarding who used the knife, It has always been clear to me. Cutting and repeated stabbing could only be the result of an emotional drive. Two people would not do this together.

Obviously Harlow had to go in the house. Joe did not. Harlow was the money source. What he had to do for that money was all fine and good in his mind if he could get what he wanted. Joe just wanted Harlow. That he had to share must have been hard on him too but that was business.

Joe would not be performing with Brent Corrigan, Harlow would. Harlow wanted to. I believe Harlow knew more about the sexual relationship between Sean and Bryan than most of Brent's fans. He was motivated to repay that abuse. Joe was more se la vie as long as he had Harlow.

Harlow was infatuated with the beauty and success of Brent Corrigan, not Joe. Harlow did most of the revealing details of Bryans death to Brent Corrigan on Blacks Beach.

Harlow was emotionally motivated and probaly not just a little chemically altered over time.

Harlow loved Brent Corrigan but did not know Sean Lockhart. http://www.flickr.com/photos/altexas/9143916359/

Joe? He loved Harlow.

Anonymous said...

the basic assumption of all this discussion about who killed Kocis is that it was some how criminal to put down a piece of shit like Bryan Kocis.

there is also an assumption that a guy with guns hidden away throughout his house didn't manage to get to one of them before someone slit his troat

Albert said...

I used to track Bryan in order to counter his bullshit. The man was a POS. So this 35 year old producer is so infatuate with one of his former models he must stalk and threaten this 18 year old boy. Photographic and marketing skills aside, his immaturity, psychosis and fixation on Sean were a part of his untimely demise. You have not heard me mourning.

jim said...

Well, Assumption 1 is sound according to our laws as written.

Assumption 2 is interesting, but since Harlow never mentioned Kocis with a firearm in his hand while he was on the stand (which would have been a very useful time to mention this, if true) we can safely assume that one as well.

will g said...

Ah but Jim, if you read Mr. Everhard's blog, which I have a bit lately to familiarize myself with his arguments, he quite explicitly states that he "doesn't give a shit" if Harlow killed Kocis. Kocis needed killing, and anyway that's not the point of all this, the point is KIDS FOR CASH.

At first, his position was that Harlow and Joe were set up, he even hilariously theorized that Kocis wasn't killed in Pennsylvania, he was killed in California (by you-know-who) and his body was MOVED to PA where it was set on fire. Later, when it became clear that his beloved Harlow was guilty, and the scandal about the corrupt judges hit the news, he changed his tune to "Well, if Harlow did it he did the world a favor. Now let's talk about Kids for Cash."

I think he still thinks there's some kind of grand conspiracy against Harlow that was orchestrated by the corrupt Luzerne County judges and prosecutors, he just never really spells out how that worked. Because, of course, it's absurd.

BTW Mr. Everhard, when someone sneaks up behind you and nearly decapitates you with their knife, you don't really have time to retrieve one of the guns you have hidden around the house.

Anonymous said...

"The man was a POS"

you know POS could be interpreted as something other than Piece. Of. Shit

Anonymous said...

Been away for three days, so my comments will be a bit dated.

Lets start with Harlow gloating. That is a very huge assumption which I thought we were trying avoid. My take was that Harlow thought that Sean should be informed that his former employer had been killed. He never said "I killed Bryan", he said "turn to this television station and see what is being reported.". He also made no demand of Sean or Grant at that time.

That does not sound like gloating.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Will:

As to why Harlow did not admit on the stand that he and Joe were supposed to be just getting the "goods" on Bryan, I believe that he should have been advised by his lawyers to do that. However the lawyers never properly went over his testimony in advance and did a miserable job of preparing him to testify.

However, being in the house to obtain material that would be used to "blackmail" Bryan would be a felony. A murder that resulted from a felony would be felony murder (even if the actions were that solely of the co-conspirator). Admitting to that on the stand would have resulted in serious Jail Time.

Also taking something away (such as the registration cards for all of the "Cobra Boys") would have be theft of property. If the dollar value of those registration cards were high enough, it would be a felony punishable by jail time.

So Harlow, who does not want to serve any additional Jail Time, decides to be creative in his testimony about what he was doing there and who let Joe into the house thus trying to eliminate all culpability.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Albert:

I have read most of your comments over the years, and agreed with many of them. However, Harlow was so infatuated with Sean, that all he wanted to do was stab Bryan 28 times after he slit his throat?? And that Joe loved Harlow so he would not be infuriated with Bryan that he would never show the rage needed to do the 28 post mortem knife stabs.

First of all, all evidence indicates that Joe was the one with the explosive temper, and Harlow was the cool headed one. Joe is the likely person who before he met Harlow had seriously knifed his former associate. Joe was the one who had the terrible reputation in Virgina Beach of being a cheat and a snob, while as one commentator from Virginia Beach (Possibly PC){right after the arrest in May, 2007} "I can find nothing bad being said about Harlow". Harlow is one who has former clients contributing to his defense fund while Joe seems to have alienated his client base. Without looking any other facts, the tendency of most people would be to choose Joe as the more likely culprit when it came to a violent crime over Harlow.

Second, Joe loving Harlow? I believe that Joe loves somebody so much that there was little room for anybody else. That person is Joseph Michael Kerekes. Joe proved his love for Harlow by influencing him to quit the Navy and work full time fulfilling the sexual desires of other men Joe collect the financial proceeds. Joe who controlled Harlow so that the Harlow lost contact with his own family. Joe who loved Harlow so much that while Harlow had his feet up in the air, Joe was sponging off of him (four cars, lipposuction). Joe who loved Harlow so much that he was willing to throw him under the bus in order to get a better deal from the prosecution.

Harlow on the other probably did want to have sex with Sean. However he had seriously love Joe at one time and still had some latent feelings of loyalty to Joe (probably more as business partner than a lover). Harlow up until the trial refused to say anything publically to incriminate Joe and he foolishly stayed with him after the murder until they were arrested several months later. While he may have stayed because he did not want to forfeit his share of the Boys R Us and Boy Batter businesses and Joe had so isolated him that he no safe place to go.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Anonymous One, I'd just remind you that perjury is also a felony. So you're theorizing that he covered up one felony by committing another one. Also, your original scenario didn't say anything about stealing documents. I guess I didn't understand what you meant by "getting the goods."

But come on, you don't honestly believe any of this is remotely plausible, do you? That Joe would convince Harlow he'd be able to sneak into the house and go rifling through Bryan's stuff while Harlow "distracted" him? I know Harlow isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but for you to think he'd fall for such a preposterous plan is a little insulting.

Anonymous said...

It was suggested by Jim that prior to murder that Harlow should have taken Big Blue (his automobile) and ridden off into the sunset. In fact we have the application by Harlow to Falcon to work for them.

Harlow may also have toyed with idea of actually working with Bryan. So when Bryan got through with his phone calls, Harlow may have pursued his role as "Danny" bit more eagerly than Joe had planned. Joe who had gotten in, was listening and came to the conclusion that Bryan was going to take away his property (for that was what he thought of Harlow) leaving Joe in a financial lurch. Think of the rage that Joe would have felt if not only was Bryan getting sex with Harlow without paying Joe for it, but he might take Harlow permenantly away.

If Joe was that outraged, he would certainly be capable of stabbing Bryan 28 times after cutting Bryan's throat.

He would not stab Harlow, or physically harm his golden goose as long as he thought he could make significant money off of him.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

The last comment I would make concerns the possibility of Harlow leaving Joe and living as a boy toy to the likes of Mitch Halford. Mr. Halford did testify under oath that Harlow would stay with him when Harlow and Joe had serious disagreements. My take on this was that Joe would threathen Harlow with harm to Halford and other person Harlow was staying with, unless he returned to the "escorting business".

Joe would probably mix up the threats to do harm with inducements such as how much he (Joe) loved Harlow. {We are dealing with psychopath).

Harlow was probably afraid of challenging Joe and if he did think of spliting, he would want to put some serious miles between him and Joe.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Will:

I see you put in a comment in midst of mine.

As far as committing Perjury as a felony to cover up another one. Keep in mind that Harlow is no lawyer. He may not have thought that he was not committing perjury only elaborating the facts, and that his mistatements would therefore not be prosecuted.

Also I think that Harlow's attorneys never intended to put Harlow on the stand. Therefore, Joe took the stand and said he could not testify (implying to the Jury that Harlow was guilty), they decided at the last moment to go for a Hail Mary Pass and put Harlow on the stand. Of course they never discussed his testimony with him in advance so they left Harlow out there to be as creative as possible in any way that Harlow thought would be effective. Harlow was just trying to show "how innocent" he was and bungled that job.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Will:

As to the second part of your last comment, what if Harlow thought that Joe would wait much longer before entering the house. Harlow and Bryan would be upstairs with Harlow giving Bryan the "deluxe" treatment. Not sure of the volume of either of them during the sex, but Bryan probably would be quite "breathless" during and afterwards and if Joe were quiet, he could pull it off.

There is also the possibility, that the plan laid out by Joe was for Joe to drop off Harlow and to pick him up the next day, with Harlow somehow managing to search for the needed "goods". Joe somehow manages to break into the home without Harlow's cooperation with the intent to murder Bryan because he knows how futile it would be find that kind of information in a short period time. Harlow lies on the stand because he wants the jury to believe that he tried to prevent Joe from killing Bryan. So in this scenario Joe breaks in and hears "Danny" asking for a modeling job with Bryan hinting that he might give him one, and this makes Joe "really really mad". So instead of waiting any longer, he sneaks up on Bryan, slices his throat while standing behind him and then punishes the corpse by stabing it 28 times.

I always wondered why the fire was set. Usually it would be done to hide the victim's identity, the time of death or some other vital bit of evidence. {In this case, it did the opposite since it limited the time when the murder could have taken place and reduced the possibility of an alibi for part of that time.} However, in this scenario, Joe thought it would cover the means by which he broke into Bryan's home and any evidence that JOE had been in the home.

I think that Harlow letting Joe into the house is more likely, but the second possibility can not be ruled out.

Anonymous One.

will g said...

Update 26:

I see you avoided mentioning "the colorful and sometimes difficult Renee Martin," who so cleverly arranged those three-way calls.

You also didn't mention that after "I know, I know Joe," there's this:

"Everything, everything's in my head, just be very calm, alright?" Cuadra pleaded.

The battered spouse is PLEADING with Joe to not blow a gasket and verbally abuse and belittle him, as he is wont to do. He's just lucky they were only on the phone so Joe couldn't smack him.

Hey, I'm only anticipating what Anonymous One might say.

The more detailed accounts of the three-way calls you saw were, according to the footnotes, most likely derived from the Probable Cause Affadavit, which oddly has mysteriously gone missing from PC's blog. It's been "moved," but that link doesn't work. I could swear I just saw it a short time ago.

jim said...

Yeah I remember the full transcripts from the Affidavit, and trust me, the context of those three way calls were way different.

Harlow was frequently interrupting Joe, telling him basically to shut up several times.

jim said...

You see that a lot on the BBTs too BTW, Harlow constantly cutting Joe off, even outright contradicting him at points.

jim said...

And as for Renee, oh, I just don't know what to say about her anymore. Maybe I'll say more about her when I get to the trial stuff.

I wrote whole posts about her back in the day. I think perhaps I've exhausted my entire list of opinions about her.

jim said...

Well, come to think of it, there is one thing in the section about Renee that deserves a mention, that being her witness bond.

The book correctly notes that such bonds are rare, and goes on to indicate that is was there because the prosecutors never really trusted her.

Back in the blogging days, Renee (who, in case you don't already know, became one of the more active and vocal Kocishere participants after she became a witness) had managed to convince many people that such bonds were commonplace, and nothing should be read into it. She loved the prosecutors, and the prosecutors loved her back, she would have had us believe.

will g said...

What's ironic about that bond, which was to assure that she'd show up to testify, is that her testimony wound up being such a non-event. A total of about a half-hour on the stand, as I recall. I guess they mainly needed her to authenticate the 3-way calls?

SPEAKING OF WHICH, look what I just found: Complete transcripts of those calls. (The first three posts on that page.) I haven't read them yet.

jim said...

Her testimony was supposed to last an entire day! The judge even announced to the court room the day before that she was a BIG witness and wanted to wrap things up so as to have her lead off, and have her up there all day and thus not have to call her back.

But they only had her there for, like you said, 30 minutes or so.

There's a back-story to this I'm sure, which does not seem to have made the book, and which MAY have involved this blog...that's never been officially revealed.

Like I said, perhaps I'll bring this up again when we get to the trial. :-)

will g said...

Oopsie, I just noticed that only one of the phone transcripts I linked earlier is of a 3-way call, but it is the same call discussed in your update.

Hilariously and horrifically, something I was never aware of before (or had forgotten) is that Renee spends a great deal of time reading from the website of He Who Shall Not Be Named (and he who strangely hasn't even attempted to post here this year, when there's no moderation). It's all about how he said they'd be murdered by the police as they were being transported from Virginia to Pennsylvania. What in the HELL was the point of reading that to them? I wonder if that was played in court? If so, it turns out HWSNBN actualy did (kind of) testify at the trial, as he said he would!

jim said...

I think Will you're the first to mention him this year...which indicates to me he's gone from irrelevant to sub-irrelevant.

will g said...

Actually he was referred to obliquely (by me) as "a certain idiot" way back on March 18. That one was probably avoidable, but I was so taken aback by her EXTENSIVE reading from his site on that 3-way call that I just had to comment on it. What her possible motivation was to do that is as puzzling as much of her other behavior.

Anonymous said...

Will at 7:03 on June 28, 2013.

That is somewhat I would say. Except I do not believe Joe would hit Harlow in any place that would show. Joe did not want to depreciate Harlow's value as an escort.

My take is that Harlow as the naggee (if that is the proper word) was in the habit of tuning Joe out. He also was concious of Renee listening and did not want blabbermouth Joe to say anything.

I wonder how many times Joe initiated the phone calls to give Harlow instructions. Harlow on the other hand was lonely and depressed (from being locked up) and just wanted to carry on a normal conversation that had nothing to do with the murders. Notice his conversation with Renee.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

# 98 of the transcripts is interesting because it is between Renee and Joe. Renee gives Joe some good advice, tell your Lawyer the truth. Harlow is not present as he was speaking to his attorney.

As to the truth of the hypothetical, who knows? Joe kept changing his story and the hypothetical absolves Joe of any culpability, something that Jim has noted Joe doing consistantly.

Does this harm Harlow, only if you believe Joe was speaking part of the truth, that Harlow burnt the clothes he was wearing after leaving Bryan's home.

If Harlow was within the blood splater range of Bryan when his throat was cut, he would have been covered in gore and unless he was already naked, it would have made sense to dispose of the clothing. Of course what was Harlow wearing when it left the house?

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Transcript 101 is very interesting but does not prove much except that with Renee, Harlow is able to carry on a normal conversation. If anything this tape would prove that Harlow is probably a bit more intellegent than we have been led to believe, (but not as smart as the other principals in this story, Joe, Sean, Grant or Bryan).

The first half of the conversation is between Renee and Harlow where she is quoting "he whose name is not to be spoken on this blog" and Harlow is listening and maybe believing. My guess is that Harlow is a slightly naive and accepts what people tell him. relating back to the previous paragraph this could be interpeted as low intelligence.

The second part is when Joe joins them. Harlow is telling Joe to stop talking about the case in front of Renee. Renee is defending Harlow and telling Joe to stop picking on Harlow. It would interesting to hear how loud the voices of Renee, Harlow and Joe were at this point.

The rest of this tape was discussed earlier.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Transcript # 97:

1) Joe absolves Sean and Grant being at the murder scene. (But we knew that already).

2) Joe is very defensive about a third person being present. Could that third person been Joe?

3) Joe implies that the story Harlow and he gave on the Black Beach Tapes was spiced up a bit and things did not go exactly as was said.

Conclusion: Not admissible against Harlow (since he is not a party to this conversation) but clearly admissible if Joe had gone to trial, or if charges were brought against Renee. Though Renee does cover herself by continually telling Joe to tell his lawyer the truth.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Observations about the three tapes:

If Harlow had been covered in gore, some of that would have ended up in the car that was rented. But the police despite a through examination within days after the murder could not find any blood traces (or this would have been introduced at trial). So how did Harlow and Joe end up not bloodying up the car?
1) if the person slicing Bryan's throat was standing behind him, the blood would splatter to front and minimally in other directions.
2) If Harlow was standing fairly far away from Bryan then only a slight amount would have gotten on him. If he had a change of clothes in the overnight bag Bryan told him to bring, then the power of Bryan's Shower and the clean clothes would have helped, but only if there was a limited amount of blood. The clothes that were stained could have been placed in the overnight bag.
3) If Joe had done the slicing from behind, he either had a change of clothing with him, or blood splater missed him so Bryan's Shower could have done the trick.
4) If they are taking showers at Casa Kokis, this would add to the time between the murder and the fire being started.
5) I do not believe Harlow could have gotten behind Bryan since Bryan would have been keeping an eye on Harlow ever since he got off the phone, yet everything points to Bryan's attacker slicing from behind him.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Renee said that originally that she believed them innocent and then after listening to them talk became convinced of their guilt.

More likely at this point, the police noticed that Harlow and Joe were making a lot of phone calls to her at the same time and then put pressure on her to make transcripts. If you notice she keeps warning them {Joe actually in these three transcripts} of the potential danger of telling her anything.

Afterwards she wanted to extend her 15 minutes of fame and became quite chatty. Opinion about her became quite derogatory after she started ranting about Sean's behavior at the trial.

Her Husband, though wanted Harlow to be put to death. Did he think that "totally gay" Harlow and Renee were carrying on an affair. Note we have not heard from either.

One last thing, after the prosecution rested, the defense wanted to recall Renee as a witness and the Judge refused. Another sign that the Defense Attorneys did not have a clue as to how to defend this case.

Anonymous One

jim said...

That's a pretty accurate account of Renee as she was back then, A-1. The only thing I might add is, I think all along she had a notion of monetarily capitalizing somehow on being involved in the drama, possibly write her own book about it from an insiders perspective. That's why she became so involved with the inner workings of Team Harlow & Joe. An acquittal would have made for quite a story to sell.

Note that she never really knew Harlow and Joe until after the murder (Joe confirms this on the BBTs).

After the 3-way calls were discovered, and she risked indictment if she did not cooperate, she decided to turn lemons into lemonade, and write her memoirs now from the perspective of being the #1 star witness for the prosecution.

Of course a trial can only have one #1 star witness, so she had to somehow denigrate the current title holder. Hence the ridiculous stories about Brent in the witness room.

Was it the judge who said she couldn't testify for the defense? I know they flew her back, but never called her. My memory of that is, that the defense just changed their minds for some reason.

will g said...

Does this harm Harlow, only if you believe Joe was speaking part of the truth, that Harlow burnt the clothes he was wearing after leaving Bryan's home.

I absolutely believe he let the truth slip out in that part of the "hypothetical." It's such a non-sequitor. Why would Harlow have burned his clothes in the scenario where he doesn't even enter Kocis' home? The only explanation for Joe including that in the version of the story he was rehearsing with Renee is that he figured there might be surveillance tapes from their time in Pennsylvania showing Harlow wearing clothes that were no longer in his possession. They burned those clothes because they were soaked in Kocis' blood.

Anonymous said...

Jim:

It was the judge that refused to let Renee retake the stand. At this point the Defense Counsels awoke to the fact that they had to prove that Joe was the responsibile individual and Renee could provide evidence as to his nature and controling mind set. Since Renee had already flown back to Texas, it meant additional delay for her to get back.

This is one decision by the Judge that I agree with. Counsel for defense had an opportunity to cross examine her when she was on the stand on any relevent point. There was no new line of questioning of later witnesses that would require her to give unrelated evidence to her direct testimony or items raised in their cross examination.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Will:

We know now that Harlow did enter the house. Blood that flows to the head has tremendous pressure behind it. Even a slight cut to the forehead creats a huge mess. When Bryan's throat was cut, the splater could have twenty feet or more.

So Harlow burning his clothes is quite feasible if any blood got on it. The question would be how far away was Harlow from Bryan when his throat was cut?

As far as surveillance tapes showing Harlow wearing different clothes, I doubt Joe would have thought about that. The same logic about Harlow being captured on tape would also shown Joe at the same location. Mentally Joe would dismiss any evidence that made Joe look quilty. Also the murder took place on an overcast night. Chances are that if such a tape did arise, Joe would reason that it would be difficult to distinguish Harlow, let alone what clothes he was wearing.

Anonymous One

will g said...

I wasn't talking about surveillance tapes from the murder scene (wouldn't it be nice if those existed!) but tapes from around town - they went to Walmart and the gym, for example. Joe would be well aware that cameras are everywhere in public spaces.

Albert said...

DeWayne told me once, "The bottom is always in charge." Don't know why I mention that but y'all have a great Independence week. I will be here,....lurking,....stalking,...for at least 2 minutes a day. Hey, I am not Obama.

Anonymous said...

Albert raises an interesting point.

We always assume Harlow to be the bottom in the relationship between him and Joe. But as evidenced by his films, he is quite versatile and maybe Harlow was so tuckered out with his feet in the air for the clients, that they stuck only to oral.


Of course being dominant in one aspect of a relationship may not be case in other aspects.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

did magnus books shut down cobra killer's twitter and blog?

jim said...

A couple of final comments about the 3-way calls before we move on.

First, it's interesting when Joe mentions the existence of "Plan B." The fact that they actually came up with labels means that they spent a lot of time formulating these elaborate contingency plans and stories to use in the event they were ever arrested. How many letters of the alphabet did they go through, I wonder?

Second, as I've expounded on at MUCH length on this blog in connection with the Harlow Apology, the absence of something can be as powerful a bit of evidence as the presence of something.

Let me give you an example. Lets say I had a boyfriend. My boyfriend convinces me to set up an appointment with a porn producer. During my appointment, my boyfriend, quite unexpectedly, rushes in and murders this porn producer, right before my astonished eyes.

Then later we both get arrested, and, then I manage to talk to my elsewhere incarcerated boyfriend via a 3-way call.

Would you like to know how my hypothetical 3-way conversation with my erstwhile boyfriend would go? Oh, I would go probably a little bit like this:

"YOU IDIOT!!! WHY DID YOU DO THAT??? WE ARE IN [screams even louder] PRISON [back to normal screaming] BECAUSE OF YOU!!! IF IT WERE NOT FOR YOU I WOULDN'T BE HERE...WHY DID YOU DO THIS [insert hypothetical boyfriend's name here]???"

I think it's fair to say I'd be spending 90% of my call time quite rightly (and righteously) blaming my boyfriend for having unjustly put me in this predicament.

Now lets take a look at the Harlow and Joe 3-way calls. You what's conspicuously absent? Recriminations.

At NO point does Harlow EVER level any recriminations against Joe during these calls. And for that matter (and this is, IMO, equally important)...neither does Joe level any recriminations against Harlow. Neither spends even a fraction of second blaming the other for what happened in the Kocis house during these conversations, which, if there HAD been unequal blame, that fact CERTAINLY would have been thrown around by the more blameless party.

So, it's obvious there was equal blame in this case. Sure, one obviously came up with the idea in the first place, but the second was a ready and eager participant in the plan as well. Otherwise, this 3-way conversation would have been LADEN with recriminations.

will g said...

did magnus books shut down cobra killer's twitter and blog?

No. They're both still there, sorry to disappoint you Mr. Everhard.

will g said...

Jim, I agree up to a point, but you have to remember that they realized these conversations were being monitored/recorded, as Renee was careful to remind them. The last thing Harlow would do at this very early stage is to say something that would incriminate his beloved homicidal maniac. (Remember, he's still a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, or battered-spouse syndrome, or whatever other syndrome Harlow apologists would invoke to explain this odd behavior.) I think it's inarguable that they still felt very protective of each other at the time of this call, whichever camp you're in. So I wouldn't expect any explicit recriminations from Harlow even if I believed his story.

What I would expect is an UNDERCURRENT of anger, frustration and horror at the situation Joe's put him in, without the incriminating words being said, and that is definitely missing from this transcript. Instead, Harlow mentions to Joe excitedly that "it looks like we'll be getting our house back," and thus they'll be able to resume their happy life together once they're acquitted.

Harlow is ready to move right back into the house with the person he's discovered is a psycho who can snap for no reason and cut someone's head off. The person who's put him in danger of receiving the death penalty, when he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the murder. And there's no bitterness or anger whatsoever that is detectable in the transcript for this call, in fact quite the opposite. So when it comes to the TONE Harlow takes with Joe, I do agree with you.

Happy Fourth!

jim said...

Yes you're right Will, there would have at LEAST been an undercurrent, and yes, you here see nothing.

Anonymous said...

Jim:

1) There were only three transcripts that we have seen and in two of them, Harlow is not present.

2) Most likely the recriminations took place in the car ride home from Pennsylvania in January, 2007.

3) Harlow was expecting Joe to confess to the crime if necessary (Plan C)but felt that attacking him now would antagonize him.

4) I always felt that Harlow had a sense of Loyalty towards Joe (as a partner)and this was his dominant feeling. I believe that one time, Harlow was deeply in love with Joe, but as time went on the passion cooled.

5) Of course, Harlow probably did not want to give up the house, Boybatter and Boys R Us and start all over again. I do not believe that Harlow had the skills to run the two businesses by himself, particually bad customers who might want to inflict harm on him or his fellow "escorts" and Harlow realized he needed somebody like Joe to provide "protection".

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Guys:

When Harlow and Joe are recorded in the one tape where Harlow is present, I do sense a feeling of rage and anger towards Joe. Afterall Harlow tells Joe he knows what they had discussed earlier and there was no reason to discuss it again. He also tells Joe not to discuss the case.

As to the horror of living with somebody like Joe (if he did the slicing, dicing and flambe-ing without first informing Harlow), that is a strong point in your argument that Harlow could be completely guilty.

However, I would point out that ever since the murder, until the arrest, Joe never let Harlow out of his sight. Harlow might have been looking for a chance to escape Joe, but was afraid that if he left him and moved in with someone else, Joe would hurt that third party as well as him.

We also know that (as stated in the Black Beach tapes) that after the murders Harlow had a hard time sleeping. Sleeping next to a throat slasher, multilator and arsonist might have been the reason. Eventually, one gets acclimated even to the worst situations and Harlow was able to sleep.

After the arrest, it is a different story. With Plan A failing (Harlow never in Pennsylvania, but with a client) after Joe opened his big mouth. Joe proposed plan B(Harlow in house, smelt smoke and left). To best of my knowledge, Harlow never stated that plan to anyone, only Joe did. I would expect that Harlow was still hoping for Plan C as previously described, but he needed Joe's cooperation. Obviously if he was get it, he could not aggravate Joe by shooting down Plan B. He also was not going to tell Joe that he would not live with him if he was the last person on earth.

Eventually, Plan C failed at the worse possible moment. Plan D was adopted which had Harlow taking the stand in his own defense and blaming Joe. We know how that worked out.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

One last thing, I went over the transcript again. When they were talking about the house it was getting it back again from the Commonwealth of Virginia which had seized it. They in turn were trying to either resell it or get another mortgage on it so they could finance their defense attorneys in Pennsylvania.

They thought they could get another $125,000 out of the remaining equity LOL.

However there was no talk of them moving back to the House together after the trial.

Anonymous One

Albert said...

I am being repetitious and maybe tedious but brief. Harlow had to go in the house while Bryan was alive. Joe did not.

jim said...

They were excited about getting the house back not because they ever wanted to move back into it, but because they dreamed (falsely, as it turned out) of selling it at a gain to pay for legal expenses.

Also, they had in mind too using the state's failure to seize it as a propaganda victory on the blogs, hailing it as an admission by authorities that the case against them was somehow weak.

You can see the latter desire on display in this IM exchange between PC and Elm. When PC announced he was going to run the true story of the underwater nature of the house before Team Harlow had a chance to package the news as a great victory, Elm literally went apeshit:

http://handjtrial.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-chat-with-elm-part-duex.html

Ah, sigh. This hearkens back to my earlier bemoaning of the non-coverage of the Kocisphere; some truly spectacular moments got left on the cutting room floor.

will g said...

LOL no Jim, I still don't think these Kocisphere dustups would add anything of substance to the book, especially this one, which was never meant to be public in the first place. Can you spell LAWSUIT? I've actually never read those chat transcripts, they make me extremely uncomfortable. Am I really missing anything important, or even interesting?

will g said...

...hailing it as an admission by authorities that the case against them was somehow weak.

That doesn't even make any sense. The seizure of the house had nothing to do with the murder case against them, it was Virginia's RICO case against the escort service, right? So yes, it may have reflected a weakness in THAT case. It's completely nonsensical to tout its return as reflecting on Pennsylvania's murder prosecution.

jim said...

Yes it is nonsensical, but that's how it was back then during the blog wars.

Anonymous said...

Albert:

I think the interview by "danny" with bryan was more than to get Harlow in the house. First it fixed Bryan in a specific location at a specific time. Second it was supposed to get Bryan to be there alone. This I think we can all agree upon.

What happened next is where the dispute begins. Did Harlow and Joe work on a unified plan, or did they work at cross purposes?

Did Joe always plan to kill Bryan or did he happen to get into the house and hear something Harlow did not intend for Bryan to hear.

Did Harlow go along with Joe's plan (in this case to act as an undercover agent) because he thought the plan would work, or did he want to meet with Bryan for other purposes?

{Remember the conversation at Le Cirque. Grant said in words to this effect: Bryan Kokis made a lot of money making Brent Corrigan a star but he would not give Brent a fair deal. Harlow heard Bryan Kokis MADE Brent Corrigan A STAR and made a lot of money doing so. Just to complete the conversation Joe heard Bryan Kokis MADE A LOT OF MONEY USING BRENT CORRIGAN. }

Those purposes would fall into one of two categories: The first would be to benefit Harlow so that he could become a bigger porn star, or give himself an opportunity to escape Joe, or even to earn some serious money that Joe could not claim. The second category is that Harlow was going to reveal to Bryan who he really was, and try to work out a deal with him whereby BoyBatter and Cobra would trade content for their web sites, and he would co-star with "Brent Corrigan" in a Cobra Film. {Please keep in mind that Harlow did not know Bryan well and could have assumed a more favorable opinion of Bryan as a person or a more favorable opinion of his own negotiating abilities than those of Joe. We all know that Harlow is an optimist, or as Geoff would put it "delusional"}

Anonymous One

will g said...

Yes it is nonsensical, but that's how it was back then during the blog wars.

And that's why the book was correct to (mostly) ignore that nonsense!

jim said...

Yes but public opinion was thought to be important, if not critical. At least back then. And so the ground over it was vigorously contested.

The book mentions one example of this later, about how Harlow wanted to have the court room packed with supporters wearing "Free Harlow" t-shirts. The actual amount he got to do this was zero.

You know, I suspect one reason Ridge and Roecker went through great effort and expense to produce a propaganda film was because they were losing the war in the comment sections, and needed to open up a new front. One in which theirs would be the sole voice, with an audience largely shielded from contradictory views.

will g said...

Yes but public opinion was thought to be important, if not critical. At least back then. And so the ground over it was vigorously contested.

But in the end, "public opinion" didn't matter at all. The only opinion that mattered was that of the jury. All of the agenda-driven, factually challenged arguments in comment threads were a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. That's why I say it was proper for the book to ignore it all. And by the way, I'm not trying to denigrate the fantastic job both you and PC did in covering this case in real time. You both provided a real service for those who wanted to follow the story as it unfolded.

As I said before, perhaps it would have been nice to have a paragraph or two explaining the existence of the Kocisphere. It was somewhat novel for its time. But nowadays, it goes without saying that any controversial issue will have people fighting it out on blogs and forums, so it makes that angle of this story even less interesting, and almost quaint, in retrospect.

will g said...

Wow, I was a BIT harsh in my last comment, wasn't I? I didn't mean to dismiss all of the Kocisphere discussions as being completely useless and a waste of time, which is the way it sounds. I was just thinking mainly in terms of there being anything really worthy of being discussed in the book. The more I think about it, the more I do think the passionate views on both sides that were displayed on the Kocis blogs did merit some kind of aknowledgment in the book. I'm still not convinced there was anything that needed to be gone into in detail though.

will g said...

Update 27:

Also interesting are his directives to Renee on cleaning up Joe's image, and improving his blog.

Yes, Harlow was so concerned about improving the image of the psychotic homicidal maniac who was the one responsible for putting him on the road to death row when he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the murder. Sorry, I just find it amusing to look at everything now through the perspective of Anonymous One, who seems to believe he might be totally innocent. No disrespect A-1, but you've gotta admit it's rather odd for Harlow to be concerned with improving the image of such a monster.

Now as for improving his OWN image, that seems rational by comparison, though for him to think any of it would trickle down to the jury pool is laughable. In the unlikely event that anyone in the jury pool had even heard of this case, I'm pretty sure they'd be rejected by both sides. Delusions of grandeur much?

will g said...

(Ack, I do know how to spell acknowledgment, comment before last.)

Anonymous said...

Jim:

I do not believe Harlow to be totally innocent. I think he was an accessory to the murder after the fact (after all he did drive the get away vehicle for a while), he was also at the least an accessory after to the fact to the robberies.

More important, I believe he is guilty of suborning perjury which he was not charge with (since that took place in Virginia). I feel what he did to NEP MALAKI (who may be the only true innocent in this whole affair) warranted some jail time.

And yes, in order for my theory about Harlow to work, he has to have some independant gumption, since I believe he and Joe were working at cross purposes.

But having some gumption does not make him the controlling factor in the relationship. While Harlow has shown himself cool in most instances get him riled enough and he will react.

Now lets go into the remarks said about Joe. At that time they were to be tried together. Harlow is probably a little smarter than we give him credit for and could see that him blaming Joe and Joe blaming him would get them both convicted. While he would prefer to put a lock on Joe's mouth, there was no way he could do it, and he did not want Renee and others to abandon him because of what Joe had said so he tried to minimize it.

(Continued)

anonymous one

Anonymous said...

One of the problems Harlow has is that he does not thing that mistating the truth (even under oath) is a big deal. In his eyes, blabbing on another member of the team was a worse offese. He may have gotten this from his Navy Boot Camp, where recruits are trained to be loyal first to their units. Therefore when Team Corrigan turned against him at the Black Beach Tapes and preliminary hearings, he was hurt and offended and felt totally betrayed.(not to mention the damage to his defense).

Also we have commented on the fact that Harlow probably wanted to make a Porn Film with Sean and was sexually attracted to him. Hence the sharp turn by him against Sean. (It is also fair to say, that just like we have a tendancy to Harlow, when we mean Joe and Harlow, there is the opposite tendancy at the time to refer to Sean and Grant as Brent Corrigan.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Sorry to have to break up these comments into pieces but if you type too long a response, it does not get transmitted.

But appre pos to your posting for Update 27, I believe your points 2 & 3 are dead on. Harlow was smart enough to know he needed a good attorney who was willing to invest a good deal of time in this case if a desirable outcome was to be obtained. That required a lot of money which Harlow did not have.

(You may hurt his cause a bit when this blog started warning about contributing to his defense fund).

Also Will you need not appologise for misspellings. Look at the 11th word in my last comment when I typed thing rather think. Even spell check would not have save me that one.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

But back to the initial point, of Harlow's innocence or guilt. I do not know him, and everything bad that you think about him could be true.

However in the end, I am left with the problem how somebody with no history of violence would cut somebody's throat and then stab him 28 times post mortem. Beside, everything about Harlow indicates somebody who is somewhat lazy and laid back yet practical. Would someone like him take the trouble to stab a dead person 28 times? Especially with availability on the scene of Joe Kerekes.

I also have a problem with the ASSUMPTION that both Harlow and Joe knew exactly what each one was planning. Since I also believe Joe would never tell Harlow about the true nature of their financial position, even if you accept the fact that Joe was willing to do something desparate to raise money, I cannot accept that this was the motive for Harlow to murder Bryan.

Anonymous One

will g said...

A-1, I meant you believe he might be/is totally innocent of the charge of first-degree murder. He's not spending the rest of his life in prison on those lesser charges.

will g said...

Yes you're right, they were being tried together at the time of Harlow's makeover project. That very fact belies your "smarter than we give him credit for" characterization, if all he was guilty of were those lesser charges.

Anonymous said...

Will:

On the level of smartness for Harlow we have not set the bar very high.

Your right that if the Murder One charge was set aside, there would be the other 11 convictions that would have to be served. This is why the other charges have to be examined to see if he is guilty or not. The only other charge that carried a life imprisionment sentence was the conspiracy to commit murder, which if the Murder One charge failed would most likely have to be dropped.

The arson charges (delibertly, recklessly and conspiracy to commit)are the next most serious charges. They could fail if Harlow went directly to the car after the Murder and stayed there until Joe arrived.

The remainder: Theft, Conspiracy to commit Theft, Tampering, Conspiracy to commit Tampering , Abuse of Corpse, and criminal use of a communications facility are relatively minor. Keep in mind that Harlow has already been in Jail over six years, so if the remainder of the charges were served concurently (rather than consecutively) this would make a big difference in how much more time he would have to serve. Not that I believe that he committed all of these either.

In fact some of the crimes may have consitutional defenses. Harlow is charged with tampering with or fabriacating physical evidence where he believed than official proceding was pending. The charge then lists the following examples, destroying, concealing or removal of victim's body, tampering with the scene of victim's death and tampering with numerous items from the victim's residence. This is a very creative charge, when Tampering usually incurs when evidence from another trial is altered, destroyed or fabricated.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Update 28:

Your conclusion about whose clothes were in the bag is so unassailable that even A-1 will have a hard time arguing with it. (Though I'm sure he'll try!) But in addition to providing yet more proof about who the slicer-dicer-flambeer was, it's interesting for a couple of additional reasons:

A. I had argued before that Joe was probably telling the truth in his "hypothetical" that they had burned Harlow's clothes, but here we are given to believe they did no such thing. They kept them. Why? Why NOT burn the one piece of forensic evidence that CONCLUSIVELY fingers them as the murderers?

B. Equally bizarre, they apparently didn't want to let this conclusive piece of evidence out of their sight, so they schlepped it out to California. Where they promptly LEFT IT BEHIND IN THE HOTEL? Now here is where I'd start to think Joe is punking Melnick, to send investigators out to California on a wild goose chase, except it was apparently confirmed by the hotel that there WAS a bag left behind. Not only that, but it seems that they didn't even realize they had left this precious bag behind, or they would have called the hotel and asked them to send it to them, one would think. But that didn't happen, as the bag was thrown away. None of it makes any sense. Unless they actually WANTED to get arrested and thought they'd speed up the process.

The police really dropped the ball on this one as well, they should have followed up with the hotel after H & J left to see if there was anything left behind. Just think what they would have found.

jim said...

Yeah I've been thinking about the oddity of that bag ending up as it did.

AS you correctly point out, you'd have to be suspicious of the bag's very existence BUT FOR the fact the hotel actually had a record of it.

Here's my theory: After the murder, they did not want to dump and hide the bag anywhere in Luzerne County. That's where the investigation would take place.

For the same reason, they did not want to dump and hide the bag anywhere along the road from Luzerne County and Virginia Beach. Too obvious a place to search.

So, they ended up dumping and hiding it somewhere in Virginia. Then the SWAT raid came and they went on the run.

After they came out of hiding, they must have had the bright idea to re-hide the bag in a place REALLY far away, and what could be further away than California?

Accidentally leaving the bag in the hotel was an jaw-dropping blunder, but as we've seen, hardly the the only jaw-dropping blunder in this case. Joe signing the register at the Fox Ridge Inn, the 3-way calls, etc etc etc.

Amazingly, this was a blunder that ended up having no negative consequences for them.

But it opens up an interesting what-if: What if the police had decided to arrest Harlow and Joe in California, right after the BBTs were made?

In that scenario, Harlow's clothes covered with Kocis blood surely would have been found, and the subsequent legal history of this case would have been quite different.

will g said...

The obvious solution to the where-to-dump-the-bag quandary is not to dump it anywhere, but to BURN THE DAMN CLOTHES, as Joe himself said in his phone call with Renee. Just have a little bonfire in their back yard. For the life of me I don't understand why they didn't do that, if Joe's story is true. I say IF, because even though the hotel supposedly corroborated it, this tale of the traveling bloody clothes is just a little too bizarre to be fully believed.

I don't know what his motive would be to lie about it, but to point out the obvious, even if a bag was left behind in California, we don't know for sure what was in it.

will g said...

After they came out of hiding, they must have had the bright idea to re-hide the bag in a place REALLY far away, and what could be further away than California?

Accidentally leaving the bag in the hotel was an jaw-dropping blunder...


Unless it wasn't a blunder, and they actually meant to leave it behind, figuring the hotel would just get rid of it for them? What if the bag in question was actually the garbage bag that Melnick speculates they put the clothes into the night of the murder? H & J may have just figured (correctly, as it turns out) that a garbage bag left behind in a hotel room would be thrown away, and thus their "where to dump it" problem would be solved without them having to do it themselves. Of course, it's a high-risk plan, given the nature of the evidence in the bag, but when have those two ever come up with a good, risk-free plan?

Anonymous said...

Guys:

After asking me to demolish this, you seem have done a good job all by yourself. If I had a bag full of bloody clothes, I would have dump it in a dumpster on the interstate (or maybe several dumpsters, with the bag separate from the clothes) between Wilkes Barres and Virginia Beach.

Assuming the ridiculous, how did they get the bag to San Diego (would have looked good if their bags were searched at the Airport, a definite possibility given the police were on them )or did they ship it by Parcel Post, UPS or Federal Express.

Of course the Prosecution if they found "this evidence", would have done a few forensic tests of their own, like 1) test the clothes to see if the blood was Bryan's, 2) test the clothes to see if Harlow or Joe's DNA were on them, and 3) check the size of the clothes to see if they would fit either Joe or Harlow.

The latter should be easy. Harlow is 5'9" and Joe is 5'11" so Harlow's clothes are probably smaller than Joe. (Assuming that the clothes were from after the liposuction, if not they should greatly different in size). The fact that they were not introduced in evidence at Harlow's trial, meant that they failed to show he could have worn them or Bryan's blood was not on them or the 'Bloody' clothes never existed. Because if they did show in the slightest that Harlow did wear them and had Bryan's Blood on them, Melnick would taken all of two seconds to decide to introduce them as evidence at the Trial, and the Judge would have sustained all objections by the defense to quash this evidence.

Anonymous One

All together now, IF THE PANTS DON'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

will g said...

The fact that they were not introduced in evidence at Harlow's trial, meant that they failed to show he could have worn them or Bryan's blood was not on them or the 'Bloody' clothes never existed.

You seem to have misunderstood what happened here. They were not introduced at trial because they were never found. The story of the bloody clothes is all from the information Joe gave during his plea agreement. Detectives immediately contacted the hotel, and were told there was indeed a bag left behind, but it was thrown away after nobody claimed it.

I wasn't suggesting you try to destroy that story's credibility, we can all assess its credibility for ourselves, based on whether we think Joe was telling the truth. I know you probably think he wasn't, but I have a hard time understanding what his motive would be to lie about this matter, especially with his plea agreement on the line.

The point I thought you would argue with was Jim's conclusion, that I agree with, that if his story about the bag is judged to be credible, as Melnick thinks it is, then the bloody clothes in the bag were obviously Harlow's, because if they weren't all of Joe's story would fall apart. Joe didn't know if that bag might still be found at the time he told this story. He wouldn't put investigators on its trail if there was a chance it would turn out to be his clothes, and not Harlow's. It's yet one more bit of proof that Harlow was the one who physically killed Kocis.

I'm still on the fence about whether I believe Joe's story of the traveling bloody clothes is true. On the one hand I think it's extremely bizarre, but on the other I have a hard time believing he'd just make something like this up while he was negotiating his plea agreement.

Anonymous said...

new review of THE BOOK posted to Amazon

Albert said...

Exactly Will. The concept of taking bloody evidence on a plane and accidentally leaving that bloody evidence behind in a hotel room is too bizarre to make up. For a person facing life in prison to tell such a self incriminating story is unfathomable. That the hotel could confirm it happened months later would not be believable in a fiction novel. Unfortunately we are dealing with real life and real people and real events. Isn't that why we are here? To observe the unthinkable. This is cheaper than drugs. .....Oh, yeah, one more thing. Only Harlow had to go in the house while Bryan was alive.

will g said...

LOL

will g said...

Oh, and don't miss "Marion" commenting on his own review.

Anonymous said...

Let me see, first you say you can not believe anything that Joe would say, then you say but when he talked about Harlow burning his clothes he must have been telling the truth, but when he said to Melnick that they took the bloody clothes to San Diego, 3 months after the fact, this was so bizarre that he "must be" telling the truth.

Face it folk's, Joe is a SERIAL LIAR and CON MAN. In fact, he enjoys conning and scaming people just for the sake of conning them. This is the guy who (if the evidence of this blog is to believed)was sending urging pleas to Harlow's clients asking for money for Harlow to Photography Classes on the way back from the murder scene.

Now consider the fact that when Harlow and Joe flew out to San Diego, the authorities knew they were comming and took several tapes of their conversations with Sean and Grant. Since I believe the authorities to be competent, don't you think they also kept Harlow and Joe under surveillance during the whole time they were in San Diego? If that was the case, I am sure they would have noticed Harlow or Joe placing a large garbage bag in a dumpster at the hotel and investigated what was in it.

If the Garbage bag was left in the room, and clothes were inside it, Hotel Policy would be to contact the last occupants and informed them that they left behind clothes. Surveillance Teams might also have searched the room afterwards for potential evidence (I do not believe they would need a search warrant for a vacant room, only the permission of the hotel manager)and found such a bag if it existed.

They might even had gotten a court order and bugged their hotel room because what they had to say to each other when alone could have been even more interesting then what was said on the beach. {This evidence if it exists was not used at trial because what was said did not relate to the murder, or did not record well}

But even if this bizzare story was true and Harlow had blood on his clothes, it would only confirm the fact that he was in the room when Bryan was killed, and the blood splatter reached where he was standing. This would not contradict his actual testimony when he stated that he saw Joe slice Bryan's throat.

My belief is that Joe wanted Melnick to go on a "wild goose chase, and by happenstance the hotel manager recalled something that might have fitted the police request.

Anoynmous One

will g said...

I think you have to read the book more carefully. As Jim said in his update, we know that Joe told the story of the bloody clothes during his plea negotiations because Melnick, the prosecutor, revealed it during an interview with Andrew Stoner. Melnick says this is the first anyone in law enforcement knew of it, thus their immediate call to the hotel. They found out that there was indeed a bag left behind in the room. So clearly, there was no search of the room by LE after they left. That's why I said they dropped the ball.

jim said...

That's quite a "happenstance"!

Like I said earlier, normally I'd be disinclined to believe this story by Joe, BUT FOR the fact the hotel actually had a record of the bag.

And yes, it's crazy to keep a bag of bloody clothes around, but they kept the video cameras as well, which is just as crazy, so...

will g said...

Well I wouldn't say it's JUST as crazy Jim! You've got to admit keeping and traveling with and leaving behind clothes soaked in Kocis' blood ups the ante on crazy.

Anonymous said...

If you recall, there were comments on this blog about a barbecue on the beach where the master tapes from Cobra were destroyed. Was that a figment of somebody's imagination, or if it occured why weren't the clothes added to this clambake.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

If you think that carrying a bag of blody clothes around is crazy, how's this for topping that.

After the Murder, Harlow wants out.
After all even he does not want to share a bed with a murderer. Joe tell him "if you leave me, I am going to give these clothes to the police". Joe has conveniently burned all of Joe's clothes so only Harlow's remain. In fact Joe is using the bag as a form of blackmail to keep Harlow around.

In San Diego, Harlow manages to get the bag left behind (at last), or perhaps, Joe feels that at this point, so much time has elapsed that Harlow if he were to inform the police, his story would not believed. (Harlow did get blood on him when Joe cut Bryan's throat, and Joe has been scaring Harlow with stories of prison life, so Harlow is definitely afraid of going to Jail ). When Joe plea bargains for Life without Parole, the DA wants something on Harlow. So Joe gives Melnick the story of the bag.

Yes you are saying: But Joe is in love with Harlow. How could he do this to the love of his life? Joe loved the money that Harlow brought in, and Harlow did make a nice trophy boyfriend, but Joe was also extremely jealous of the younger, handsomer and more popular man. So Joe figured if he was going to rot in Jail, why should Harlow be free?

But being Joe (which means being as crazy as a loon)Joe decides to milk Harlow's attorney for a TV set and whatever else they can give him. Then at the very last moment (in front of the jury no less) Joe decides that he just can not testify. The Jury gets the impression that Joe wanted to give them. And Joe gets to scam Harlow once again. Joe feels victorious and for Joe that is all that matters.

Anonymous One

They say that being involved in a murder can affect one psychologically, and my guess that Joe went from being mildly sociopathic to severe psychotic after the murder.

jim said...

Yes there was discussion of the master tapes on the BBTs. The original plan was to gift the tapes to Sean and Grant, they said, but they decided at the last minute they were too "hot" so destroyed them instead. But not before watching and enjoying them.

You know, another thought just popped into my head. Sean and Harlow are about the same size and build, clothing-wise.

Could the plan have been to plant the evidence in San Diego, to make it appear that Sean was the murderer?

A back up plan to frame Sean and Grant for the murder might have been useful to them, for a whole variety of reasons.

It could be that they had a scheme to bury the clothes near Sean and Grant's house (it overlooks a canyon, IIRC), but never got around to it...and forgot the clothes when they left.

josh said...

that would require actionable intelligence.

Anonymous said...

Jim:

Harlow was a fairly muscular 5'9" man, Sean at that time was much shorter and a lot skinnier. The clothes would not match. Also the DNA from the clothes would contain Harlow's sweat.

If those clothes existed (and I still have my doubts about that), Joe had a reason to keep them, and it concerned keeping Harlow's cooperation.

I have also thought about why they were left in San Diego. I do not believe Harlow knew that that Joe left them behind. I think Joe had second thoughts about carrying them back on the plane where they might be inspected, and decided it was time to ditch them. Of course he would not tell Harlow of same, so he could still hold them over him.

If the clothes did exist, it would also explain why Joe insisted on Plan B. After Harlow said that he was in the house and smelt fire and left, reference to the "bloody clothes" would have been extremely damaging.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

I know I am making Joe out to be pure evil,and I believe I may be overdoing it, but this jealoulsy of Harlow has to have existed to explain most of his subsequent actions.

Maybe Joe was merely bi-polar, but most of his actions were designed to make Harlow look guilty. Besides the confession to Melnick, and his weird actions when he was called to testify at Harlow's trial, we also have his jail house interview where he blew plan A, he was the first to contact clients to ask them to lie about an alibi(in Newport Beach), he took traceable cameras from Bryan's home, and he blabs on the three way talks before Renee in such a way as to imply Harlow's guilt.

We also know about another conversation with a fellow prisoner where he planned to blame Harlow for the entire crime.

It is one thing to claim he was in the Pinewood Lodge (that is self-preservation), it is another plant hints and evidence beyond that to incriminate his supposed lover.

Contrast this with Harlow, who tries to deflect blame onto third parties rather than his business partner and you can see why I think that strong jealousy by Joe of Harlow existed.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

I also left out the pistol shots in the boy-dello (which caused Hensley and Shunt to leave), and what Jim called the pistol whipping.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Do we actually have someone new posting here? Speak up Josh, explain your cryptic comment.

will g said...

A-1, Joe was adamant that he would never testify against Harlow, as he told reporters, and he kept his word, despite what you know had to be intense pressure from the prosecutor when he was negotiating his plea. That just doesn't jibe with the portrait you're painting of him. When push came to shove, he still protected him.

Albert said...

But accidentally leaving a bag of DNA soaked clothes behind? Oh dear, my bad.

jim said...

I think what Josh is saying (and he does have a bit of a point) is that the plan I outlined in my theory may have been too crafty for them to have conceived.

Neither Harlow nor Joe will ever be compared to the fictional Professor Moriarty, aka the Napoleon of Crime.

Anonymous said...

Will:

Joe did not protect Harlow at Harlow's Trial. What he did was appear before the Jury and say he could testify before them. He was called by the Defense, not the Prosecutor, so he was under no pressure from Melnick to testify. In fact, Melnick was probably glad that he did not, since had he testified for the prosecution, Harlow's attorneys could have cross-examined him. I believe the expression "loose cannon" was used to describe his potential testimony.

But the Jury hearing Joe take the stand and then refusing to testify, could only draw the inference that the Defense wanted Joe to say something in Harlow's behalf and Joe was refusing. That inference would be the same you and Jim have concluded: Harlow was the killer but Joe was refusing to fall on his sword for Harlow.

Had Joe really had qualms about testifying, he would have told Harlow's Attorneys before the trial, before getting the TV Set and whatever into his canteen fund, that he was not going to testify. This would have given them time to prepare Harlow for testifying (which he clearly was not prepared)and align their trial strategy accordingly.

And yes, I think Joe is smart enough to realize what he was doing to the man he "loved". In fact this was his plan ever since he decided to plead quilty to avoid the death sentence. Once again Joe showed Harlow who was the dominant personality in their relationship.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Will:

typed too fast again. The first sentence should read" he could NOT testify before them".

Anonymous One

will g said...

He was called by the Defense, not the Prosecutor, so he was under no pressure from Melnick to testify. In fact, Melnick was probably glad that he did not

I don't know how you know he was under no pressure to testify for the prosecution. It's standard for one co-conspirator to agree to testify against the other one as a condition of a plea deal, and I'm sure this case would have been no different, except for the fact that the plea was for life without parole, so the prosecutor didn't have any leverage to compel him to take the stand. As for him being a "loose cannon," that's true whenever you put a convicted criminal on the stand. Melnick would have gladly subjected Joe to cross-examination in return for his testimony.

jim said...

Yeah if my memory serves, Melnick never asked for Joe to testify as a condition of his plea because he didn't see him as being useful as a witness.

will g said...

"I absolutely will not testify for the state case against Harlow," Kerekes said after his plea.

That doesn't sound like someone who has never been asked to testify for the prosecution. If Melnick ever said he didn't think he'd be useful as a witness (which I couldn't find him saying anywhere) it sounds to me like it was something of a defensive rationalization after Joe made that public statement.

Anonymous said...

Will:

As Jim has commented, there was a discussion on this blog about how wise Melnick was not to put Joe on the stand. I would agree with that analysis.

Melnick could have forced Joe to testify by holding back on sentencing pending the outcome of Harlow's trial (In other words rejecting the plea deal and then trying him in a death penalty case. He did not.

Two reasons. I believe that Melnick thought that Harlow was the principal criminal in the case and Joe a mere conspirator.

Second, the plea agreement included a statement by Joe that might not stand up under further examination. The prosecution figured no need to waste any more time on Joe since they got in their eyes a suitable result.

As to Joe's statement "I will absoultely will not testify for the state case (sic) against Harlow", this is the same guy who stated "I am a serial killer""Harlow is telling the truth" and who laid out plans to throw Harlow under the bus to a fellow inmade at their joint trial. You can not accept what Joe says. He rationalizes, prevaricates, and outright lies depending on his mood at the moment and what he hopes to gain by making that statement.

I hope though that you would look not to his statements but his actions which speak more truthfully. Unless Harlow's attorneys were absolute fools, they must have interviewed him way in advance of the trial to determine what he was going to testify about. If Joe was going to say something under oath prejudicial to Harlow, they would never have put him on the stand. Yet they did try.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

"Had Joe really had qualms about testifying, he would have told Harlow's Attorneys before the trial."

The whole purpose of discovery / deposing a witness before trial is to know what the witness is going to say and to be able to confront the witness with his deposition testimony if the witness says something different at trial.

the only way Kerekes could have just been called to testify at trial IF HE WASN'T ON THE DEFENSE's WITNESS LIST before trial, would have been if the Judge and the Prosecution agreed to allow Joe to be called as a last minute witness for the defense.

the conflict counsel lawyers who represented Cuadra at trial weren't the conflict counsel lawyers for Cuadra during discovery / pre-trial. The Conflict Counsel Lawyers for Cuadra at trial didn't do any of the pre-trial legal work and they were left with only Cuadra's testimony (and without having deposed Kerekes) because the Judge would not give the new conflict counsel lawyers time to prepare for trial after the previous conflict counsel lawyers left the case.

Anonymous said...

While a deposition gives counsel the advantage of locking the witnesses testimony, it also has the disadvantage of allowing opposing counsel access when that witness is being questioned.

In the case of Joe, you have no idea what he would say to a potential question, and you really would want to have a strong idea of what his answer would be. Supposing you were to ask him at a deposition who sliced Bryan's throat, and Joe says "Harlow did it" you just blew the cost of the stenographer. You do have the alternative though of interviewing him in private and sounding out all kinds of questions which you would never dare ask without knowing what the answer would be.

As far as a witness having to be listed in order to be called, this is definitely the case for a prosecution witness. It would also be the case for an expert witness. However, I do not believe that the other defense witnesses need be listed in advance. This is one of the built in advantages for the defense. Of course not knowing the rules of local practice in Luzerne County, the other Anonymous could be correct. There would be another reason that might prevent Joe's testifying. As a prisoner in the State Penitentiary, a court order would be needed to allow his transport from the prison to the courthouse. The judge could refuse to sign that order.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Following up on the main idea in Anonymous (Two?) comment that the counsel did not have enough time to prepare, I would agree in part. However given the shortness of time envolved, and the likely importance of Joe's testimony to the defense, it would have been my priority to invest some of my limited time to interviewing Joe prior to the trial.

And given the static on this blog about a TV set being given to Joe, some negotiating must have taken place between Harlow's new attorneys and Joe or his attorneys.

ANonymous One

Anonymous said...

when the public defender's office in luzerne county has a conflict of interest representing a party, that party is assigned counsel from Luzerne County's "Conflict Counsel Pool". the attorneys in the conflict counsel pool were appointed to their positions in the pool by the president judge of the luzerne county court. In cuadra's case, his conflict counsel lawyers would have been appointed to the conflict counsel pool by either conahan or ciavarella (both now in prison).

will g said...

And here I was so proud of you, Mr. Everhard, for getting through an entire comment (11:54 PM) with NO reference to Kids for Cash. Then you had to go ruin it with your last comment.

So one of those judges appointed the conflict counsel. And? Were those lawyers part of the conspiracy too?

jim said...

This is the last comment of the thread. We'll pick it up with a fresh new post soon, on the topic of ... ooooh Joe's plea deal, start of Chapter 10! [reading reading reading ...]