Friday, September 6, 2013

Victory Day 2013, Part Cinq

Update 39: PC gets some great new interviews with the jurors. Most interesting comment being the feeling on the part of at least two of the jurors that Harlow's mom was perhaps hamming it up with some staged weeping near the path were the jurors would move to and fro.

"[R]easonable doubt went out the window when Cuadra opened his mouth" sayeth another juror, and it's clear the other 11 pretty much agreed with her.

Yet even in "hindsight" Harlow's lawyers say in the book (quoting a post-conviction interview) they HAD to do, given the state of the trial up to that point.

One problem I've always had with this post-trial reasoning, however, is that it directly contradicts what Harlow lawyers said during the trial. Just prior to Harlow taking the stand it, was reported that Harlow was "Going against his lawyer's advice not to testify,...".

This makes me wonder. Were Harlow's lawyers really the driving force behind the decision, as they claimed after the trial? Or were Harlow's lawyers simply being kind to Harlow, by taking the blame for his terrible unilateral decision against their advice?

Only ONE of those lawyers statements can be true. Is it the during-trial statement, or the post-trial statement?

My personal belief is that Harlow's lawyers were telling the truth in the first instance; that Harlow overruled their advice, and ordered them to put him on the stand. I base this on a number of factors, including Harlow's Kocisphere-related behavior, and how easy it was for him to dupe a wide range of bloggers and supporters, from Elm to Jason Ridge, into believing whatever lies he served up at the time. There were his own blog posts, both pre- and post-arrest, written with such overweening arrogance. And there were his tape-recorded efforts at image maintenance, which shows that he thought himself some sort of Svengali-like master of manipulation.

In short, he successfully suckered so many people in the past, he thought it would be a piece of cake to sucker just 12 more.

And it was that decision, according to the jurors, which sealed his doom.


Update 38: The jury verdict rolls in. And here is to me one of the biggest surprise revelations in the book, that initially only 8 of 12 of the jury "voted" Harlow guilty initally.

When I blogged about this issue back in 2009, I didn't get any impression there was a formal vote taken, just that 4 of the jurors rhetorically hemmed and hawed (and smoked) a bit before finally and formally voting guilty:
1) Amazingly, four jurors actually held out for a bit on finding Harlow guilty in the guilt phase: 
“There were four jurors who thought it could have been Joe,” Scutt said. “You had no direct evidence, no DNA linking (Cuadra) to the murder. There was so much circumstantial evidence. There were several that couldn't put the knife in his hand.”
A smoking break, of all things, quickly broke the logjam, however:
“The jurors went out for a smoke, and when they returned, one of them told us she thought about the case when she was outside for a cigarette and came to agree (Cuadra) was guilty,” Stavitzski said. “The other jurors who had doubt then came around.”
Smoking was definitely hazardous to Harlow's health in jury deliberations."
Lets enter the realm of speculation for a bit. We already have a core of 2 jurors who voted to a acquit outright and two probably leaning that way such that they abstained. Lets say a few things went differently during the trial. Let's say Joe testified and fell on his sword in accordance with Plan C (or D or whatever). Lets say Harlow's image makeover and blog misinformation campaign succeeded, and the court room was filled with "FREE HARLOW" t-shirt wearing supporters every day. Lets say those 4 Harlow-leaning jurors became 6...or 7. THEN we are looking at at least a hung jury...and possibly a not guilty verdict.

The fact that 4 jurors felt strongly enough at the outset to decline to formally VOTE guilty, despite the mountain of evidence that was presented to them, tells me the case outcome was actually a lot closer than I thought in 2009.



Update 37: Some final comments on Melnick's cross-examination. What the book tells me that I did not really know before is the occasional combativeness of Harlow on the stand with Melnick. This didn't come across to me strongly during the news accounts and court watcher reports back in 2009 (to my recollection, anyways). The only impression I remember back then was that Melnick was having a field day, ferreting out various major inconsistencies in Harlow's story, much to Harlow's embarrassment.

I wonder if that combativeness was a wise strategy? If your whole defense is based on claiming to be a defenseless bully victim, is it a good idea to respond to bullying by the prosecutor by bullying him right back?

Most interesting moment detailed in the book: Melnick bringing up the Here TV Roecker interview, and Harlow trying to explain it away by claiming Roecker taped him for the show without his knowledge (!!!). Considering that recording a phone call without permission is a crime in most states, this incident of selling an ally and supporter of his down the river astounds me today, just as much is it did in 2009.

Most interesting moment NOT detailed in the book: This exchange -
"“Mr. Cuadra, let’s cut to the chase. Are you saying that Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart have anything to do with this murder?” Melnick asked.
“No,” Cuadra responded."
Which I think shows a big difference between the book, and the blogs as they existed back in 2009. This little Q and A was a huge deal in the Kocisphere back in 2009, as there were still bright embers of hope amongst the Brent-bashers that Harlow would at some point turn to the jury, and dramatically implicate Sean and Grant in the murders. That concise word "no" dashed all those pent up hopes. The Brent-bashers silence after this point was deafening; their disappointment was palpable. It was one of those major Kocisphere moments.

The book handled this whole matter (probably correctly, IMO) with a couple of paragraphs at the start of Chapter 6 ("To be clear,..."), and never returned to it. So, what was of thermonuclear importance in 2009 did not even make the cut in 2012.


Update 36: Melnick begins cross-examining Harlow at the start of Chapter 12. This is generally remembered here to those following the trial live back then as a great slaughter (with Harlow being the slaughteree). Just go back to the thread in question here, and browse through the comments to get a picture of all this.

Melnick begins the chapter by blowing up the whole dominating Joe theory with gusto, and the book gives a few examples of taped statements of Harlow, used by Melnick, to show that Harlow wasn't just this wus being pushed around all the time by "Terror of the Tidewater" Joe.

In fact, going back to that old thread, you can find some excerpts on that point I managed to find on my own back in 2009:


"Update 6: Per Sassy's advice in the comments here, I went combing through the CCTs and BBTs, to see what clues I could find as to who dominated who in the Harlow/Joe relationship. These were the most telling items I found: 
"HARLOW CUADRA: I'll tell you what, when we're nude on that beach you can ask me whatever the hell you want. 
GRANT ROY: Okay. 
JOSEPH KEREKES: Really? 
HARLOW CUADRA: Yea." 
Here we have Harlow making a critical (ha ha, how's that for understatement!) decision in this saga, all on his own. Joe meekly aquieses, with the one-word question to Harlow: "Really?" 
And then right after that we have: 
"GRANT ROY: So y'all going to Sea World tomorrow? 
JOSEPH KEREKES: Honestly Grant, if you can't give us a positive word tonight, we're gonna head back tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon. 
HARLOW CUADRA: Well we'll give you 'til tomorrow." 
Now, here's the exact opposite; Joe makes a decision, and then Harlow completely overrides it. 
I think we now know who was the "controlling" partner in this relationship."
The thing is, I could have easily found more such examples combing through the BBTs back then. If you read through those transcripts in their entirety, it's very clear that Harlow is, at the very least, an equal co-partner in the relationship (indeed, an excellent argument can be made that Harlow was dominant over Joe via manipulation). In any case, as all of these statements reflecting the relationship between Harlow and Joe rolled in the Kocisphere as the case developed, Harlow never came across to us as a dominated wallflower.

And you know, the best evidence of this isn't even these various tape snippets. It's one of the prime witnesses who testified in the case: Justin Hensley.

Here's what Hensley had to say about the relationship (back in Chapter 4):
"Hensley rejects suggestions that Kerekes was dominating over Cuadra. Kerekes could be "a loud mouth," Hensley said, and Cuadra "just kind of put up with it." "I grew to be, you know, a friend of (Harlow), because he took care of me and (Cuadra and Kerekes) had their disagreements about things, but I don't think Harlow would do anything for Joe," Hensley said."
Boom. That's really game-set-match on this issue. Hensley actually LIVED with them, thus he was better positioned to judge this question than practically anyone else on this planet. He was testifying under oath on this matter, and he has absolutely NO conceivable reason to lie. So, it's easy to see how the whole dominated-Harlow theory got rejected by the jury.


Update 35: Chapter 11, Harlow on his own behalf. Before we get into Harlow's story, we need to remind ourselves of the context in which it was told.

This court room story was Harlow's third major story. The first story, if you all recall, was that the real killer stole Harlow's well-circulated escort photo off the internet, and he had nothing to do with the murder at all. This story began to fall apart when the Vegas photo of he and Brent together was discovered, an impossible coincidence that made it clear he was lying.

The second story was that he had an innocent meeting with Kocis in PA, arrived at the house, peeked in, smelled smoke, and left. This was the story famously labelled Plan B in the intercepted three-way calls. Harlow and his supporters stuck to this story until Joe's plea deal, admitting he'd been a party to murder, made Plan B completely untenable as well.

Notice that each change in story was never made voluntarily. It was always forced upon Harlow by the revelation of new facts pointing to his guilt, necessitating a new story be concocted that manages to explain away all the facts, both new and old. The jury knew of this history of tale-telling and story-shifting, as did the bloggers.

The jury and the bloggers also knew of his other attempts at deceit, such as his campaign to find fake alibi witnesses, the aforementioned three-way calls in which fake stories (which were even given "Plan" letters) were openly bandied about, and the creme-de-la-creme, happening JUST before Harlow took the stand: Joe walking into the court room saying that Harlow had asked him to lie and tell yet another story, but he decided against it at the last minute.

And right at that moment, the poor, downtrodden, frightened and innocent Harlow mask drops, and a pair of ANGRY Harlow eyes shoots bullets at Joe. Joe leaves the court, the poor, downtrodden, frightened and innocent mask goes back up, but not before at least one juror witnesses the facial transformation.

So, that's the context.

And with that in mind, here in a nutshell is Harlow's court room story:


Harlow and Joe wanted to shoot porn with Brent Corrigan, but there were complications with this lawsuit Brent was in with a company called Cobra Video. Harlow had a very low opinion of Cobra Video, saying their marketing was unbelievably poor, and "their edit work sucks."
Brent settles his lawsuit, so yay, he can shoot porn with Harlow. But Harlow and Joe decide that it would help build Harlow's audience to shoot a video with Cobra beforehand. Because as we all know, nothing helps builds an audience like working for a company with terrible marketing and sucky editing.
So, Harlow arranges an interview with the owner of Cobra Video. But he does so using a fake name. Because as we all know, the best way to boost yourself name recognition in the industry is to work under a fake name no one will recognize.
Anyways, the interview is going swimmingly until Harlow's boyfriend Joe starts pounding intensely at the front door. Now, several witnesses have testified already that Kocis NEVER answered unexpected knocks at the door. But those were just normal knocks! Obviously a menacing, rapid pounding with a heavy fist is a splendid occasion to throw caution to the wind, break tradition, and open that door. So, Kocis opens the door...
And then Joe the jealous boyfriend bursts in and cuts Kocis' throat, while Kocis quite understandably complains about the fact that his throat is being cut. Harlow, naturally, is mortified at this turn of events.


And that is pretty much Harlow's story. True, I left some details out, but like I said this is but a nutshell, and I think all the major points have been hit.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time here telling you my opinion of all this...I save it for the comments. Perhaps the occasional faint whiff of sarcasm in my retelling of the story may have given me away already.

But I will make a note of a few minor additional points about Chapter 11:

1) Harlow states that Joe controlled his finances so much that Harlow did not even own a wallet. Now, I have a question that I'm going to crowdsource out to you all: Is there a police record posted, on PC's blog perhaps, of the inventory of possessions taken off their person when Harlow and Joe were arrested? PC has a LOT of documents posted on his blogs, but I can't remember if an arrest inventory sheet is among them. And it's been so long I don't even know where to begin to look.

I'd be VERY curious to know if a wallet was found on Harlow...

2) Harlow states that Joe had a habit of bursting in jealously on his sessions with clients...similar to how he says he bursted in on Kocis. However, none of the Harlow clients called to testify (Nep, Hal(l)ford, etc..) testified to this. Why were none of the bursted-in clients called in to testify on this critical bit of alleged evidence?

Also...one would think a bursted-in client would be quite irate at Norfolk Male Escorts. So much so they would leave a bad escort review. However, looking at Harlow's old reviews (yes, they still exist, Harlow and Joe are listed as "retired", LOL) there is no review in existence mentioning any such bursting in by Joe.

One would almost believe, by the complete lack of easily obtainable supporting evidence, that Harlow is making this bursting in thing up.

3) Harlow states that he sat in on three or so phone calls by Kocis, each about five minutes long. If true (and in this particular instance, I can think of no motive for Harlow to lie) this verifies my earlier theory about Harlow arriving BEFORE the Macias call, and sitting in on phone conversations between Kocis and Lee Bergeron and Macias.

IMO this is probably the most interesting thing in Chapter 11.

217 comments:

1 – 200 of 217   Newer›   Newest»
will g said...

Just a couple of quick questions for now about No. 3: Wasn't it Macias who was called to the stand to say, in essence, that he heard the exact moment Harlow arrived for his appointment? How does that jibe with your theory that Harlow arrived before that call? I don't quite understand that. And really, you think that's the MOST interesting thing in the whole chapter covering Harlow's direct testimony? I haven't read it in well over a year, but I think I remember this entire chapter being rather riveting, it being the first detailed account anywhere of what he said on the stand, with extensive quotes from the trial transcript.

jim said...

Ah yes, that's tricky thing. IMO Kocis "fibbed" to Macias about a model just arriving.

Reason being is not hard to imagine. If his interview with Harlow was being continually interrupted with phone calls, he'd want to put a stop to them, as politely as he could.

So, at one point in his final phone conversation, he impatiently invents a little white lie to cut the conversation short. "Hey a model just arrived, gotta go..." even though said model had been sitting there in the room the whole time.

jim said...

And yeah, the testimony culled from the transcript was unique. But we had gotten the essence of it from news reports back in 2009 when we were all live blogging it.

Now we see it all in greater detail, but it's pretty much what I expected, so no great surprise.

You can check out our thoughts as they existed back then, as it was unfolding. The comments are interesting:

http://silenceofthechinchillas.blogspot.com/2009/03/trial-musings-16-plan-c-express.html

Anonymous said...

Jim:

On the whole I agree with much of your analysis. However, you need not stress the killing look Harlow gave Joe as being revealing of Harlow's nature. If you had been promised by your supposed boyfriend that if worse came to worse he would tell the court about your innocence and then did what Joe did (which was worse than not appearing), you would be giving him killing looks BIG TIME. In fact, Harlow did as good a job of controlling himself and not yelling at Joe the way many of us would have in that situation. Of course, Harlow's mother did shout at Joe as he left.

I will cover your three major points in separate posts.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

I do not know about the wallet, but we know that Joe carried around Harlow's credit cards. Again an interesting fact to find out, but if the credit cards were not in them, the wallet would be good only for carrying around condoms and some loose bills.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Point two:

We had comments by Renee about Joe checking out new clients. Joe was familiar with Nep, Mitch Halford and Joesph Ryan. Besides they were paying clients.

I always thought that Joe's chief beef with Bryan was that he was getting "FREE SEX" with Harlow.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Point Three:

I agree with you about the time of Harlow's arrival. He was probably early.

The real question is at what time did Joe go into the house?

Anonymous One

will g said...

I always thought that Joe's chief beef with Bryan was that he was getting "FREE SEX" with Harlow.

So when Bryan opened the door, Joe should have said, "Excuse me Mr. Kocis, I am Harlow's pimp. That'll be $300 please, cash or credit card." But instead, he decapitates him.

Jim made a very good point about the absurdity of Harlow saying Joe often burst in on his sessions with clients. Both the fact that no client was called to the stand to corroborate that, which MIGHT have even resulted in Harlow's acquittal, but also COME ON, if that had happened even once, word would have gotten around so quickly, through the grapevine or on one of those review sites, that Norfolk Companions would have been toast.

Anonymous said...

Most of us only got to hear Quicky Start's summation of Harlow's testimony. PC had declined to attend the trial.

I believed that Harlow was not properly prepared by D'Andrea and he said (mistakenly) whatever he thought the jury would be swayed by, regardless of the truth. His biggest mistake was Joe knocking on the door and then punching Bryan in the mouth before slicing his throat.

Despite this, we have a scared individual (facing a potential death penalty) adrift in a courtroom without preparation by his attorneys who should have reviewed his testimony in advance. We have to remember that Harlow was a highly paid escort. Every day, he had to lie to clients about how great they were and how much he "loved" them. The clients probably appreciated the exaggerated stories he would amuse them with and over time, Harlow lost the ability to value the truth.

This is not uncommon when lawyers are called to testify. The better lawyers tend to be the worse witnesses, anticipating questions and fudging responses.

If Harlow was as dumb as a post, he probably would answered each question directly and truthfully, and his credibility accepted by the jury. But then we would have the pleasure of debating this event.

Anonymous One

will g said...

If Harlow was DUMB he would have answered directly and truthfully, and have been believed by the jury? Yes, it would have been quite dumb for him to admit the truth about him being a cold-blooded murderer, but I do agree the jury would have believed it.

There shouldn't have been any issue about "preparing" him to tell the truth. That actually requires no preparation, it's very easy.

jim said...

"I believed that Harlow was not properly prepared by D'Andrea..."

I think that's true, and I think the reason he was relatively unprepared was because he was never supposed to testify at all.

The Story was supposed to be put in front of the jury by Joe. When Joe backed out, that left Harlow as the only way for the Story to be told, which was not the original game plan at all.

"...and he said (mistakenly) whatever he thought the jury would be swayed by, regardless of the truth."

I can't argue with that.

jim said...

Speaking of missing witnesses who could have bolstered Harlow's case...I know of another witness the defense could have easily called . A witness who could testify directly to the controlling nature of Joe Kerekes. A person who, if quizzed aggressively on the stand, could have convinced the jury that Joe Kerekes was the sole murderer.

So, who was this mystery witness who could have been a HUGE help to Harlow, if Harlow were truly innocent?

His name is Joe Kerekes.

Think about it. At the moment Joe made his surprise announcement to the court, the defense STILL had him there via subpoena. There is no reason they could not have simply turned to the judge and said, "Your honor, in light of the witnesses' just uttered declaration to the court, we would like to at this point treat Joe Kerekes as a hostile witness."

I see no reason Harlow's lawyers could not have done that. UNLESS they were worried Joe would turn out to be a more believable witness than Harlow.

Anonymous said...

Jim:

calling Joe as an adverse witness also requires preparation. One has to think of which questions one has to ask and what order they should be.

I doubt D'Andrea and company had a clue as to what to ask Joe. Harlow had probably told them what Joe had promised him, that Joe would take the stand and exonerate Harlow. D'Andrea and company said fine, no need to waste time running out to Joe's prison and find out what he is going to say.

Contradicting Joe might have been difficult, because, the defense team had not laid down the proper grounds to do so. As with the case of Renee, Judge Olszewksi would not have allowed the recalling of any witnesses who had already testified, even if they were in the courtroom. (Remember all witnesses were not allowed to hear prior testimony before they testified).

There was a third defense witness (old cellmate of Joe's) but who was never called to the stand. Not sure if he could contradict Joe, but without Joe's testimony, the third witnesses testimony would be hearsay and probably inadmissable. Wonder how much time D'Andrea spent with this witness.

This would leave Harlow to contradict Joe, the net effect would be for the jury to disregard both sets of testimony.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

I thought all last night about Harlow's statement that Cobra's Marketing was unbelievable poor. It occured me something that Dwayne had on his website about the marketing of porn and how it had changed. Dwayne noted that previously the marketing had been to sell DVDs in stores and then trend was towards direct streaming of videos over the internet (ala Sean Cody and others). Cobra made its big money selling DVDs though I believe they started video streaming at the end. Boy Batter on the other hand always sold their videos through direct streaming. So when Harlow was trying explain something which he only partially understood he managed to "the incorrect or inappropriate use of a word." This is called malapropism after a Mrs. Malaprop a character in Sheridan's play "The rivals" who was constantly doing this.

The use of Stockholm Syndrome by Harlow was another example. I think Harlow suffers from a severe case of Malapropism and is one of the reasons why he is such a bad witness.

The knocking of Cobra's editing comes from someone who did the directing of Porn films himself. It is human nature for him to think he did a better job of editing than Bryan. Again another poor use of the word "sucks" when a better one would have been I thought I did a better job.

The Joe at the door comment may have come from a past incident in a different location with a different client. Harlow was under stress from three weeks of trial (including watching himself naked on Black Beach with his mother sitting behind him), recalling the horror of Bryan's near decapitation and mixing this up with another traumatic situation. One should remember that the actual trial took place in 2009 so there would have been time for Harlow to mixed these separate events together.

I also realized that Nep Malachi, Mitch Halford and Joseph Ryan were probably never asked about Joe busting in on them. The prosecution would never gone into that territory, and the defense had not yet pivoted to the need to paint Joe this way. I still do not believe Ryan or Malachi would have been accosted this way. Halford is a different story. We know from his testimony that Harlow would stay with him at times when he needed a break from Joe. How would Joe react to his chief ASSet being unproductive? I think by chasing him down at Halford's place, and making loud threats to Harlow if he did not return immediately and resume working and making money for Joe. But that opportunity was lost when D'Andrea failed to inquire about that when Halford took the stand.

Anonymous One

will g said...

The defense took every opportunity to paint Joe as domineering, abusive and violent. You're honestly arguing that no testimony was given about him bursting in on Harlow's sessions because they hadn't "pivoted" there yet? That is just silly. The reason they didn't "pivot" into asking clients about it is because it never happened. It would have been a PIVOTAL piece of evidence showing Joe's pattern of behavior, and those corroborating witnesses would have been the centerpiece of Harlow's defense, if they existed.

jim said...

"calling Joe as an adverse witness also requires preparation. One has to think of which questions one has to ask and what order they should be."

Coulda asked for a recess. Even until the next day. Under the circumstances I can't imagine it would not have been granted.

jim said...

And yeah, to echo what Will said, to show Joe to have been a habitual burster-inner was SUPER important for Harlow's case. If there was evidence out there other than Harlow's say so, it should have been brought in regardless the cost.

The fact that it wasn't strongly suggests it was not true.

jim said...

"The use of Stockholm Syndrome by Harlow was another example."

You know why Harlow mentioned Stockholm Syndrome? I'll tell you why, he read about it on these blogs.

We had been speculating for months about the trial, and the term frequently came up in the comment threads as regard to his possible defense.

We know Harlow was image obsessed and was being supplied with the Kocisphere postings on a regular basis. So, he knew what it was, and how it could have applied to him.

Problem is, why he used it at trial in front of a jury, he sounded incredibly foolish, like he was pretending to have a PhD in Psychology.

When I read about him using the term during his testimony I cringed. I could just image the judge, jury, clerks and lawyers all rolling their eyes when he said it. But the funny thing is, I knew where he got it from, and I had to chuckle.

I wonder if Melnick objected ("witness is not qualified as an expert in the field ...")?

will g said...

The fact that it wasn't strongly suggests it was not true.

That's putting it much too mildly. I'd say it's proof beyond all doubt that it's not true.

Anonymous said...

Jim:

I strongly doubt that Judge Olszewksi would have granted a request for delay unless they were near the end of the court day. Besides being a former chief prosecutor and highly biases towards the prosecution, he would have expected the defense to be prepared for this situation, and he had a jury to consider. Last Joe would have been required to be housed overnight, possibly in the same location as Harlow (though obviously the county jails in the neighboring county could have been used).

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Will:

The way I remember, the defense did make out that Shunk and Hensley were kept on a short lease. I do not remember Quicky saying who (between Joe and Harlow) was keeping them so. Hensley did say that Harlow protected him but not whom from or from what (according to what Quicky reported). Hensley did report the bullet hole in the ceiling which made Jim comment that Harlow could go free.

So there was certainly some attempt by the defense to paint Joe as controlling before Harlow took the stand. However there could have been more emphasis and detail asked by them.

However, I disagree with you about asking Nep,Ryan and Halford about contacts with Joe. They could have asked them whether or not they were familiar with Joe. I think Halford would have a lot to say about that, since he was letting Harlow stay at his place when Harlow was on the outs with Joe. Halford must have asked Harlow what was happening and why he needed to stay there.

It also would have help enormously, if this idea of controlling personality of Joe had been raised in the opening statement by the Defense rather than the blanket indictment of Grant, Sean and Robert Wagner as potential killers.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Harlow was concerned about his image. Of that there is no doubt.
But rather than ridicule him for it, remember, that presenting the right image by the defendant is an important defense strategy. Even the adverse juror quoted in the previous section, noted that Harlow appeared to be this innocent youngster until he took the stage.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Make that took the stand.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Jim, I was just looking for the passage in the chapter referenced in your No. 2 that we've been discussing, about how "Joe had a habit of bursting in jealously on his sessions," and I can't find it. The closest I came is this:

To ensure his "rules" were followed, Cuadra said, Kerekes would insert himself into escort calls where the client had only requested Cuadra, not both men. "It was very awkward," Cuadra said. "He was forcing himself into the call, but then after that (the client) would never want to see me again with him. It was just very awkward."

Is that what we're talking about? If it is, I think we're arguing about something Harlow never said. What he's describing isn't Joe "bursting in," but him insisting on accompanying Harlow and observing him with clients, and I guess even participating in a two-for-one type deal, to make sure Harlow wasn't doing anything with these clients that Joe didn't approve of. That's a far cry from "bursting in" on a session.

If that is indeed the passage you're referring to, I think we're going to have to give Harlow a break here. This seems to be just more of the same kind of controlling behavior that had indeed been corroborated by other witnesses. It's not quite what we've been making it out to be.

jim said...

Will, you're right that bursting in isn't mentioned here, just "forcing himself into."

For some reason "bursting in" was stuck in my mind, and after a careful review I discovered it's source: Two bursting in episode described in chapter 4, associated with footnote 109.

Funny thing about footnote 109, it indicates an A.E.S. interview with Joe. So, none of this was in the trial (unless Harlow is in fact talking about the same thing).

If these two bursting in episodes alleged by Joe are accurate, it is astounding that Harlow did not elaborate on them more in trial.

jim said...

By the way, in re-re-reading Ch 11 just now, I came across this interesting tidbit:

"...Cuadra began developing a regular set of clients. "everybody that I met, it didn't matter if they worked at a burger joint [ie, Nep] or a senator, everybody that I met, they just called me again,"..."

So, this is Harlow confirming the existence of the senator, the third confirmed source for this overall (the first two being Joe and Hensley).

will g said...

Aha, I knew it sounded familiar, that's why I was surprised I couldn't find it in the chapter. Now this presents a conundrum, because it's Joe providing the evidence of his pattern of behavior, replicating the night of the murder, that Harlow didn't even bother to mention to support his story! (Presuming that he didn't, that is, the book hardly gives a complete account of his testimony. But I would expect it would be included if he did.) As I said, the quoted passage about "inserting" himself into sessions isn't really all that relevant to the murder. IF Harlow's story was true, it would be a no-brainer for him to tell his lawyers and the jury about these earlier incidents, showing that this exact kind of thing had happened before, minus the decapitation. Is Joe fabricating it? I can't think of any reason why he would, it certainly doesn't make him look good.

Yes the mystery senator did make a cameo appearance at the trial after all. Harlow couldn't resist boasting to the world that he'd bagged a senator.

will g said...

Clarifying what should be obvious, when I said "because it's Joe providing the evidence of his pattern of behavior, replicating the night of the murder," I meant replicating Harlow's FICTIONAL account of what happened on the night of the murder.

will g said...

Since we've kind of let Harlow off the hook as far as the whole "bursting in" issue goes, I'd just like to point out one of the most egregious examples of him putting his foot in his mouth on the stand. Indeed, although I don't know if much was made of this on cross examination, I consider it to be close to a smoking gun in proving that his entire account of the murder is a big, fat lie. Page 240:

The tussle between Kocis and Kerekes, Cuadra testified, knocked over the coffee table in front of the couch and spilled the glasses of wine sitting there. (Photographs taken just after the fire was extinguished, however, showed the table in an upright position, and detectives said they found the wine glasses stowed in the kitchen sink.)

And A-1, PLEASE don't say that they could have tidied up before setting the house on fire!

Albert said...

There was no reason for Joe to enter the house until Bryan was permanently pacified nor is there any evidence that he did so. Harlow would have needed some help removing items of interest quickly. Tidying up would not have been a priority.

Anonymous said...

Will:

I have always had a problem with Harlow's testimony. The fact that bothers me the most is Harlow's claim of Joe knocking at the door followed by the punch in the mouth followed of course by Joe cutting Bryan's throat (twice).

I wish we could get a complete copy of the transcript of his testimony before commenting, but making do with what PC, Quicky and the book put forth I would not defend the testimony.

First had Joe come bursting through the door as described, I believe we would have Bryan being held for the death of Joe Kerekes since he would have had adequate time to reach for a gun, and based on what we know about Bryan no hestitancy in shooting an unwanted intruder.

I do believe that Bryan was killed by someone sneaking behind him and cutting his throat by surprise. I still believe that would not be Harlow because Bryan would not have taken his eyes off of Harlow until they had sex.

That leaves only two other choices Joe and a third party we can call Marlow Cuadra. Since Marlow Cuadra is a fictional caracter (all apologies to Peter Everhard), this leaves Joe as the only potential person left.

Albert, Joe had every reason to go into Bryan's house since he planned from the very beginning of this exercise of Bryan's death. Also he would never trust an known klutz like Harlow to do the job, or even if Harlow was not a klutz, he still had to be the controlling individual in this affair.

Somehow, Joe got into the house, whether Harlow let him or Joe found another way in is immaterial to fact that Joe got in.

Harlow unprepared to testify, felt he had to explain how Joe got in, started by telling an untruth, and one lie led to another.

The result is obvious. The Jury did not believe him and they convicted him on all counts.

Where I start to defend him, is that despite his testimony, there are certain abnormalities that just can not be explained away. First is the absence of a motive for Harlow, second is his previous non-violent history and almost passive nature.(Attested to by his fellow "escorts" and clients). Then there is fact I just mentioned, how does Harlow sneak up on Bryan and cut this throat from the rear? Where does he hide a knife unless he uses the knife on the cheese platter (and would this be sharp enough to almost decapitate Bryan)? Would a Harlow Cuadra then waste time stabbing Bryan 28 times after Bryan was obviously dead? (would said cheese knife be suitable for stabbing?)

Then when you have a manic-obsessive like Joe readily available who would do all these things, it is hard not have doubts about Harlow being the actual killer.

And that is what I have are strong doubts.

Anonymous One

will g said...

A-1, I know I sound like a broken record, but again your theory defies all logic. I'm not talking about the logistics of Joe getting in the house without Kocis noticing, which is also impossible, but your rationale for Harlow making up his story because what, he was embarrassed to admit he let Joe into the house? In your scenario, he's still a completely innocent bystander to murder, so why would he choose to tell a humdinger instead of the truth? Sorry, it just doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

jim said...

Yeah we've been over this ground before, the lack of defense wounds on the arms in the major bit of evidence here.

There are only two logical explanations for this:

1) A sudden treacherous strike by someone Kocis has his guard down around. Could have been from the front, back, doesn't matter. But that person would have to be Harlow, as Kocis' guard would certainly be up if Joe entered the house.

2) Kocis hands are pinned behind his back, allowing a second person to strike. It doesn't matter what role you assign Joe and Harlow, both would equally be murderers. So, take your pick on this one.

Without defense wounds, there is no scenario possible where Joe kills Kocis and Harlow is a shocked bystander.

jim said...

A few more comments:

"an known klutz like Harlow": ???

"whether Harlow let him...": Harlow = co-murderer in that case.

"First is the absence of a motive for Harlow...": Again I disagree, we have ample evidence of Harlow's motive, from his attachment to his possessions to his admission on Black's Beach that he purged the demons of his childhood. PLENTY of motive.

"second is his previous non-violent history and almost passive nature.": I believe Harlow took part in the earlier throat-slashing of Jon Ross, which opened the possibility to both Harlow and Joe that they could resort to violence to attain their means, and get away with it. This would explain much of their later reckless behavior.

Albert said...

Honey badger says, "I do believe that Bryan was killed by someone sneaking behind him and cutting his throat by surprise. I still believe that would not be Harlow because Bryan would not have taken his eyes off of Harlow until they had sex."

I have described this before so please excuse me if I attempt it again from memory.

Bryan liked to have sex with his models, He got a 17 year old Sean Lockhart drunk so he could do just that and he did.

Harlow just needed to stand up from the couch and without saying a word, start to unzip his pants. Not pull them off but just unzip the front. Walking behind the couch he could begin stroking Bryan's ears and neck. Working his way down to Bryan's shoulders and then his pecs. He might lean over and kiss Bryan. At the same time he could pull a nice sharp blade out of his pocket and gently insert it along Bryan's throat. Neat and clean.

Bryan's couch was separated from the wall you know.

Albert said...

Oh, by the way guys, I spent a lot of time with Sean over the last weekend. He was in Austin to update his photos for Fleshjack. Sean has added a lot of muscle. He also appeared at a night club a couple of nights and worked the Fleshjack booth at Austin Pride. I was with him the whole time.

I also checked his hands and guess what, no blood.

Anonymous said...

First, why do you always assume that Joe could not get into the house without Bryan's knowledge. I have already said that while Bryan was on the phone, Harlow could have walked by the front door and unlocked it. Joe could have also got in through a window, or despite all you have said about Bryan, he left a door unlocked.
If a locked door can be forced quitely if unbolted.

So please don't say that Joe getting in defys all logic.

Second, Bryan had to be attacked from behind. First because if he saw his attacker there would have been defensive wounds. Also a knife thrust from the front or side would take the form of a puncture, or maybe a slice. But to get a deep cut that almost decapitates requires the full force of person behind him pulling back with the sharp edge of knife.

If Joe got in quietly and sneaked up behind him, Bryan could have been surprised.

Last how does Harlow get behind Bryan without Bryan's knowledge. While Bryan was on the telephone, this would have been possible, but all indications are that the murder took place a little while after the phone calls ended. {Harlow seems to have gotten some information that he shared on the Black Beach Tapes that would have come from a conversation between him and Bryan and that conversation could not take place until the phone calls ended} Once Bryan had finished with the phone calls his attention would have been fully riveted on Harlow so any attempt to pull a knife or get behind him would have caused a reaction. Such a reaction would have produced defensive wounds or prevented Harlow (if he had attempted to murder Bryan) from accomplishing the lethal blow.

So again it is not unreasonable that someone else besides Harlow did the slicing.

Keep in mind that had Bryan been killed later after sex had occured, the opportunities for Harlow to murder Bryan would have been better.

And nothing in this secario explains the TWENTY EIGHT SEPARATE PUNCTURES MADE POST MORTEM except by a crazy obsessive individual which is much more Joe than Harlow.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

I have used the term Klutz because this is how I think Joe viewed Harlow. Here are the instances:
1) Joe's pet name for Harlow is BABY not even Babe.
2) Harlow loses his return plane ticket from Las Vegas.
3) Harlow wears inappropriate footwear to go down the path to Black Beach. (Joe apparently listened to Sean and Grant and wore the correct amount.
4) Harlow knowing he was going on a public beach fails to check up at the bathroom before leaving the hotel. Needs to relieve himself shortly after arriving.
5)The knife purchased at the Pawn Shop is found unopened in its wrappers after the Harlow and Joe's arrest in their vehicle. My guess is that they drove one of their vehicles to the rent a car place and then Harlow either deliberately or forgetfully leaves the knife in their own vehicle. (Joe could have done this, but he could have still blamed Harlow for this forgetfulness. Another knife is purchased at Walmart.

Harlow of course was an E-5 in the Navy, drove race cars and automobiles without any accidents so we are talking about a matter of perception rather than reality. Still, It would be interesting to ask people who knew him intimately if Harlow was clumsy or always losing things.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Albert:

We know from the evidence that Bryan expected to have sex with Harlow, and that Harlow knew that Bryan expected sex from him.Taking your scenario, as Harlow is doing the kissings, petting and stroking, wouldn't he need to use both hands. Also what would Bryan be doing with his hands as this occured, most likely touching Harlow and probably loosening those unzipped pants. Then Harlow has to smoothly reach into his pocket and pull out a knife without looking since his head and mouth would be occupied. I know I would have trouble finding the knife in my pocket under those circumstances. Harlow would be hard presses to do so, open the knife and then position it next to Bryan's neck without Bryan noticing the awkwardness.

It still does not explain the 28 post mortem punctures. Clearly if Harlow was on drugs he would have had a hard time getting to the slicing let alone the dicing.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Jim:

I thought that we all agreed that the previous knifing of Joe's old boss (or partner) probably took place prior to Harlow and Joe getting together. If we are talking about prior history this is an indictment of Joe and continuation of his modus operandi.

This is as bad as Harlow holding Bryan's Hands while Joe would be cutting his neck. Bryan would have been struggling against Harlow, and Joe would have more likely cut Harlow then Bryan.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Alright A-1, Joe getting into the house without Bryan noticing doesn't defy logic, it defies common sense. As I recall, the front entry of his house looks directly onto the living room where his body was found. There is no way anyone could open that surreptitiously unlocked door and walk in without him noticing, I don't care how mesmerized he was by Harlow. That and any other mode of entry is so unlikely that yes, I would use the word impossible.

You didn't address my main point, which is that this alternate theory of yours is one where Harlow is completely innocent of murder, so why would he make up an outlandish story that contradicted the existing evidence and insulted the jury's intelligence, instead of telling the "truth"? (Of course that "truth" also contradicts the evidence.)

Anonymous said...

Why did Harlow lie on the stand? This is the question I can not answer with certainty especially without looking a complete transcript of his testimony. I think it comes from the nature of what Harlow had become.

Harlow had become an A-List "escort". If he was a woman the proper term would be a courtesan. The people who wanted Harlow's compnay were lonely people who wanted in addition to sex to be entertained. You could take Harlow to a fine restaurant, a show, a play and not be embarrassed. You would be able to have sex with him and he was able to go in for role playing (One speciality was probably pretending to be a 19 year old virgin). You could have a conversation with him and he would tell you the most amusing stories all of which you know were completely untrue but coming from him were still funny and incredibily cute.

Now put Harlow on the stand and he knows he has to convinced the jury to be "on his side". So he reverts to form and starts to tell stories that would amuse a client but not a jury or a court of law. Add being unprepared to testimony and a great deal of animousity towards Melnick and the process.

The testimony that he gave was a story accompanied with sound effects that Quicky related to us. To crucial facts:"I went to Bryan's house to check him out, Joe got in, Joe cut Bryan's throat, Joe stabbed Bryan multiple times until I got him to stop, Joe then ordered me to go to the car where I waited, Joe later came out carrying the cameras and master tapes and we drove off" were not contradcited, only the elaborations that Harlow made of those facts. Some of those elaborations were made out of movie scenes he had saw, or books he had read, or even Web Sites he had visited, and some were made up on the spur of the moment.

Was there guilt about the crime
or some of the criminal acts that he wanted to avoid divulging? Was there a third party who Harlow wanted to protect? There easily could have been.

And to be honest, there is the possiblity that Harlow knew that Joe was going to kill Bryan or had talked about it. Harlow could have felt (in this instance) that while Joe was talking about this, that Joe would never actually commit these crimes. Therefore I have never said that Harlow was completely innocent and that you guys are wrong in your belief that he is guilty of murder, arson, abuse of corpse and theft. I have merely questioned the logic of how you have come to those conclusions rather than the conclusions.

Anonymous One

will g said...

And to be honest, there is the possiblity that Harlow knew that Joe was going to kill Bryan or had talked about it.

And to be honest, that would make him guilty of first-degree murder. ESPECIALLY if he helped Joe gain entry, or knew he was going to gain entry. But at least you've supplied a plausible motive for him lying on the stand.

PC said...

"Was there a third party who Harlow wanted to protect?"

Nope.

will g said...

Hi PC!

A-1, I'm sorry, I was distracted when I posted my last comment. Frankly, I was so surprised to see you acknowledge the "possibility" that Harlow knew Joe was going to commit murder that I glossed over the rest of the paragraph. But I have to say I'm equally surprised by you saying you've never said we were wrong to say Harlow's guilty of murder. Of course I don't have time to go over all of the threads, but I can pretty distinctly remember you saying that at most he was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. Perhaps our arguments have been so persuasive that we've convinced you to change your position? I'd like to think that's what's happened...

I don't think the logic Jim and I have used to come to our conclusions is any different than the logic the jury used.

Anonymous said...

Will:

I said I had strong doubts about Harlow slicing Bryan's throat or even planning it. However, if we used some of the European systems where the defendant has to prove his/her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would have to find Harlow guilty.

While the penalty for being an accessory before the fact to the crime of murder is close to that for being the actual killer, there is some distinction granted. For example in Pennsylvania the death penalty would not apply unless some other grevious factor applied. And then there is the possiblity of a pardon (if the governor felt the prisoner had reformed or no longer was a threat to society).

I also think that Harlow believes that if he did not actually slice Bryan's throat then he was innocent of murder. (If that is the case, I would disagree with him.)

But these are some of the reasons why the distinction of who did the actually murder matters.

One thing the blog has not mentioned much is the potential for a felony murder conviction. If Harlow and Joe had plotted to threathen Bryan or burn down Bryan's house thus destroying records that Bryan would need in his suit against Sean & Grant, and then Joe went off the deep end by slicing, dicing and fricaseeing the late Mr. Kokis, then even though Harlow had not planned to murder Bryan, a charge of first degree murder would stand. It is this possiblity that most concerns me and would explain much of Harlow's testimony.

Anonymous One

PS. As your arguments changing my mind, sorry, but I felt this way, long before I joined this conversation. However, I do find your arguments interesting even when I disagree with them.

will g said...

For example in Pennsylvania the death penalty would not apply unless some other grevious factor applied.

There always has to be an aggravating factor for the death penalty to be considered. I can't find the PA statute right now, but I do know that PA does not distinguish at all between being a conspirator in a murder and actually doing the killing when it comes to charging and sentencing.

I'm not sure why a felony murder charge would concern you, if he had only conspired to commit one or both of those other two felonies. It's always been the case that one is guilty of felony murder if it occurs during the commission of another felony, regardless of what the original intent was.

will g said...

I'll amend that comment, I guess the Wikipedia entry does raise some issues that might be of concern to you about felony murder. They do not concern me. And of course this wasn't even an issue in this case, Harlow was charged and convicted of first-degree murder, which was entirely appropriate.

will g said...

Just one more thing about felony murder: If I understand correctly, you said you were concerned that if Harlow had told the "truth" instead of making up a whopper, he'd be confessing to felony murder, even though he didn't conspire with Joe to murder Kocis. Well, then all I have to say is he must be one of the stupidest murder defendants ever, with the stupidest legal counsel ever, because he could have gotten a lighter sentence for a felony murder rap, since that's second-degree murder. When someone so blatantly lies on the stand, the presumption will be that it's to cover up the crime they're charged with, not a lesser related crime they're unwilling to cop to. It was his choice to roll the dice and shoot for a complete acquittal. That's just too bad.

Anonymous said...

Will:

In most states Felony Murder is first degree murder. So it is not a lesser crime but in fact the same crime.

Second, Joe plead guilty to second degree murder and got life without parole.

Need I remind you of the discussion on this blog at the time of trial, that Harlow might have preferred a death penalty to life behind bars for the rest of his natural life.

As far as his attorneys being stupid, lets be charitable and call them unprepared and under a lot of pressure (especially the ones earlier in the chain of defense attorneys).

Whether or not he could have gotten a lesser sentence for cooperating was also a discussion. I stated I do not believe that the prosecution ever offer anything less than life without parole.

Now as far what he said under oath, there was considerable room for improvement (if you think that he was guilty of the premeditated murder and was going to lie anyways). Jim has done a good job of pointing out some serious discrepancies like the table being overturned in the fight.

If I was in a position to counsel him to lie (and hopefully I would not have done do) I would have had him testify that he did not know how Joe got in, that he had his back to Bryan while undressing, and when he felt this spray of blood, he turned around and saw Bryan with his head almost off and Joe stabbing him in the stomach. There were gurgling noises coming from Bryan but they soon ceased.
He then went into a stage of shock and when Joe told his to go sit in the car he did so. I would also skipped the testimony about being abused by his step father (and saved that for extenuation and mitigation, if it came to that).

In some states, a defendant can give an unsworn statement to the jury, which prevents cross examination. I do not believe Pennsylvania was one of those states.

Anonymous One

jim said...

"And then there is the possiblity of a pardon (if the governor felt the prisoner had reformed or no longer was a threat to society)."

I think there's always this possibility, regardless of the charges. The pardon/clemency/commutation powers of governors are generally unfettered. Unless there is some wrinkle of PA law I am unfamiliar with?

will g said...

No A-1, in Pennsylvania anyway, which is the law I was referring to, felony murder is second-degree murder.

will g said...

As for Joe pleading guilty to second-degree murder and getting life w/o parole, of course that's true, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it, as it was part of a deal to avoid the death penalty. The standard sentence for second-degree murder in PA is life with a chance for parole.

will g said...

Update 36:

Nothing much to say yet, just demarcating the thread. But I will just mention that, as I recall, the testimony on whether Joe at least attempted to dominate and control Harlow was a bit more mixed than that one statement from Hensley would indicate. And saying Harlow wouldn't do anything for Joe doesn't necessarily contradict that dynamic in their relationship. That is not to say I believe Joe coerced Harlow into the murder plot, I don't.

jim said...

The dynamic was interesting. The paras afterwards have Hensley describing the bullet-in-the-wall incident, which I think illustrate it nicely.

Harlow is the only one able to go into the room and calm Joe down. A "Joe whisperer" in other words.

Joe at times had a violent temper, had jealousy issues, etc. But Harlow had a way of getting those things under control.

Calling it "manipulation" might sound a bit too sinister, but it would be essentially accurate IMO.

Anonymous said...

I went over your blog from the trial. Noticed that Melnick contradicts himself when he says:

One thing I agree with Mr. Cuadra, that Joseph is Kerekes is a murderer,

Then of course later he says that Cuadra murdered Kokis.

But if that was the case how did Kerekes become a murderer?

Remember this is Prosecutor Michael Melnick speaking? Did he possibly believe Joe was in the house at the time of the murder?

Anonymous One

jim said...

Because you can have two murderers, of one victim, legally speaking.

Anonymous said...

The above coment is an example taking an isolated incident and applying to a whole string events as if each event was exactly the same and since the outcome in one event is known all other events in that string must be the same.

Harlow and Joe are two human beings. Their relationship was not always 100% Joe controlling and 0% Harlow submissive. This is the same in almost every relationship. But I bet that in the arguments between Harlow and Joe, Joe won over 75% of them.

And the two examples at the restaurant in San Diego are not very good ones. The first is Joe
giving an ultimatum, "says give me an answer by tommorrow or we are leaving". Harlow doesn't really contradict him. He says they will leave tommorrow but perhaps they can discuss this again the next day before leaving.

The second one is agreeing to tell all on the beach. Joe and Harlow may have plan that in advance. Keep in mind that when they are on the beach, Harlow really does not say much, only that then my guy came around and things went crazy.I believe this is also when they said that they destroyed the master tapes at a Barbecue on the Beach. Most of what he told them were things that he overheard Bryan saying on the phone.

Of course we know that Harlow had left Joe on previous occaisions. This was Harlow's main way to win some argument from Joe by threathening to leave. Of course with Joe holding the credit cards, the ready cash, the businesses and by having all of the debt in Harlow's name, it did kind of weaken Harlow's bargaining position. This was the situation before the murder took place.

This brings up again the question of why Harlow did not leave Joe after the murder. I think because leaving Joe was not an option. Joe still had all of Harlow's credit cards and money. Joe may also made some threats to harm Harlow, Harlow's friends or Harlow's family if Harlow were to leave him now. Before the murder, Joe was just a gas bag making threats. After the murder, Joe was a credible threat (assuming Joe was the murderer). Physically Joe was only marginally stronger than Harlow. Joe with a knife or a gun was more than a match for an unarmed Harlow.

After the arrest, or possibly before, Joe had also waived the carrot (I'll take the blame as a last resort, as long as you don't rat on me) along with the stick (I'll tell them you did it, and they will believe me, if you rat on me). Harlow believed Joe as to both the promise and the threat so he kept quiet about Joe until Joe broke his word and refused to testify at trial.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Jim:

Melnick did not say Joe was an accomplice, he said he was a murderer. In plain english, that means he did the actual murder.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Of course the interesting question is what if Harlow actually did the murder. WHY DID NOT JOE GET AWAY FROM HIM or turn Harlow in. Joe was sleeping in the same bed with a person who had slashed a guy's throat, then stabbed his dead body 28 times, and burned down his house. Would you feel safe sleeping next to that person when you are the only surviving person who witnessed the crime?

Yet it was Joe who slept soundly and Harlow was the one could not sleep for months afterwards?

Personally, it is my belief that Harlow and Joe not be arrested for the crime that after time had passed and Harlow no longer brought in the big bucks (six or seven years later), Harlow would have been found with his throat slashed by the side of a road. Joe would have been desolate with only the huge life insurance policy on Harlow (with Joe as beneficiary) to console him.

This may surprise you but the arrest of Harlow in May 2007 may have extended Harlow's life by thirty or forty years.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Melnick did not say Joe was an accomplice, he said he was a murderer. In plain english, that means he did the actual murder.

A-1 what's happened to you? Do we really have to explain that Joe needn't have wielded the knife to be guilty of murder and thus be called a murderer? How else could he have been convicted while maintaining he stayed at the motel? I feel like you've had a momentary brain fart. That's OK, happens to all of us!

will g said...

Of course the interesting question is what if Harlow actually did the murder. WHY DID NOT JOE GET AWAY FROM HIM or turn Harlow in.

Again, this comment bewilders me. THEY CONSPIRED IN THE MURDER. That's why they stayed together. There has never been a theory advanced by anyone, until now, that Harlow did the murder all on his own without Joe's knowledge.

Harlow NEVER provided a plausible explanation for why he stayed with Joe, who according to him was a lone homicidal maniac, despite your attempts to provide him with one. Joe had the credit cards, Joe made threats against him and his family, etc. etc. Too bad Harlow forgot those reasons on the stand. The closest he came to an explanation is that he "shut down" after the murder.

Joe was sleeping in the same bed with a person who had slashed a guy's throat, then stabbed his dead body 28 times, and burned down his house. Would you feel safe sleeping next to that person when you are the only surviving person who witnessed the crime?

Turn that around, substitute Harlow for Joe and vice versa, and that is precisely why Harlow's staying with Joe makes no earthly sense in the context of his fictional account of the murder.

jim said...

"Again, this comment bewilders me. THEY CONSPIRED IN THE MURDER."

Yeah, all these thorny questions of why who didn't leave who all get seamlessly answered if you make one basic assumption: That they both planned and conspired to kill Kocis together.

You see, in that scenario, no one has a pressing pre-arrest reason to leave the other.

Anonymous said...

Guys:

You know Joe did not stay in the Motel. You both have said so in the past. You have previously said that he got in after the murder and set the arson. So is it such a stretch to say that he got in somehow prior to the murder.

It is bad enough having to deal with Harlow's contradictions.

Also when I talked about Melnick's comment I was only taking a page out of your analysis. Blowing up one sentence out of proportion. For the record, I believe that Melnick believes that Harlow was the actual person who sliced Bryan's throat. I don't.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Getting back to your examples of Harlow taking charge. It has occured to me that each time, Harlow was acting as a peacemaker.
Taking Justin Hensley testimony and the events at the San Diego Restaurant and we have a picture of someone who is trying to smooth the waters not rile them.

Anonymous One

jim said...

... which is a kinder, gentler way of saying Harlow manipulated Joe.

will g said...

I was only reacting to your comment saying if Melnick called Joe a murderer, it meant Joe "did the actual murder." We know Melnick didn't mean that, since he allowed Joe to maintain that he stayed at the motel during the actual murder. "Murderer" is the correct term for a conspirator who has been convicted of second-degree murder. Whether he actually stayed in the motel isn't the point. However, for the record, I tend to believe that he did. He was confessing to being a conspirator in the murder, so why would it be so important to him to lie about staying in the motel if it weren't true? (Of course you think he's lying about EVERYTHING, I don't.)

will g said...

In other words, if, as Jim and most others think, he was on the scene but only helped with the theft and arson, then why wouldn't he admit that? I don't get why he'd want to cover that up while confessing to conspiring in a murder.

Anonymous said...

Will:

Joe never intended to testify for Harlow because it would mean that Harlow would get a lesser sentence than Joe.

Joe also believes that despite his plea deal, he can get either a pardon or parole. Admitting anything hinders that chance.
(Of course that chance is close to zero, but Joe qualifies when describing someone as delusional).


Anonymous One

will g said...

OK. I don't think I addressed either of those points, but I don't necessarily disagree with them.

Anonymous said...

One thing about controlling someone as opposed to manipulating: While the term manipulating is perjorative, to say that Harlow occaisionally influenced Joe would not be incorrect. But could Harlow make Joe do something Joe did not want to do (Controlling), this I doubt very much unless the matter was extremely unimportant to Joe.

On the other hand I believe that Joe could control Harlow to a large degree but not completely. I would agree with both of you, that Joe forcing Harlow to go into Bryan's home alone and then to kill Bryan would be beyond Joe's capability to control. I also believe that if Harlow had tried to kill Bryan he would have been unsuccessful, and giving the proximity of guns in Bryan's home, Harlow would have likely been killed. Albert ideas to contrary, I do not see Harlow being able to surprise Bryan once the telephone calls were completed.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Going over some old comments. Jim at one point raised the possibility of Harlow killing Bryan because he identified Bryan with his step-father.

First, I am not quite sure what the relationship between Harlow and his step-father was. His putting him as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy is puzzling. Most likely it was a love/hate relationship. Harlow liked the attention and Harlow liked the sex.

I going to assume that you would agree with me that Harlow like having sex with other men as a general rule.

On the other hand sex with a putative parent is always icky and probably the major reason Harlow joined the navy.

Still after the thousands (probably) clients that Harlow had, I do not think Harlow would suddenly want to kill the client because of a flashback to his step-father.

You are probably on safer ground imputing a monetary reason to Harlow. However it does not explain the 28 post mortem stab woulds to Bryan.

The only way that would occur if Bryan somehow was hurting Harlow. This would raise defenses that Harlow would have invoked but has not, and therefore I do not believe that this (hurting of Harlow) occured.

Anonymous One

Of course Joe stabbing Bryan 28 times post mortem is quite believable.

will g said...

Wait, I do disagree with you that Joe thinks "admitting anything hinders that chance" of a pardon, if you're referring to the arson and theft. He's admitted to murder! Even he knows that arson and theft would have no impact on a hypothetical pardon when he's already admitted to the crime that sent him away for life.

I also doubt that even Joe is delusional enough to dream of parole. He'd probably be the first person in history to be granted parole after getting a sentence with no possibility of parole. And on what possible basis would he think he'd be considered for a pardon? This is all rampant speculation, there's been no indication from him he's banking on either parole or a pardon, has there?

Anonymous said...

Actually there was from Renee of all people. She talked about him scheming on the way to death row to get out of it.

I believe that there was discussion on this very blog about states moving away from sentences of life without parole.

In Joe's case, he may be scheming about a way to get his sentenced reduced. After all he has only admitted to conspiricacy to commit some violent crimes without admitting to having committing any. Technically this makes him a NON-VIOLENT CRIMINAL, the type that they are releasing from jail all the time. True the non-violent types mentioned are white collar crimes and possessions, but you can never determine what some crackpot panel may do in the future.

For the record, G-d forbid that they ever let Joe out, that would be a travesty of justice.

Anonymous One

will g said...

No, PA law classifies Joe as the most violent of criminals, regardless of who did the stabbing. I can't think of anything more delusional than him thinking he's ever going to be released because he was "non-violent."

will g said...

Update 37:

It's interesting that that exchange about Sean and Grant you excerpted is not in the book, but this passage is:

He also alleged from the stand that Lockhart and Roy were lying and "had joined in collusion to get their stories straight to be able to make you (Melnick) happy so they can go back to San Diego and carry on with their lives."

Doing a quick skim of the chapter, that's the one and only reference I see to Sean and Grant that's included from the cross-examination. I would submit that it's more than a little misleading to include that, and not include the fact that Harlow completely exonerated them. In fact, I would say it leaves the opposite impression on the reader. Particularly as it's taken out of context, giving no indication of just what it was Harlow was insisting they were lying about. It's puzzling.

will g said...

AND when you consider that, and the fact that Joe is given free reign in his interview with Stoner to make up a story about how Harlow, Grant, and Sean started cooking up the murder plot at Le Cirque, where Joe was just an innocent bystander, and it only exacerbates the impression some have (hi Rob!) that PC has an anti-Sean & Grant bias. I've never bought into that myself, but this adds fuel to that fire.

jim said...

"...giving no indication of just what it was Harlow was insisting they were lying about. It's puzzling."

Yeah now that you mention it, I wonder what this "lie" was now too.

Albert said...

"Of course Joe stabbing Bryan 28 times post mortem is quite believable."

Why? Joe had no need to be in the house until Bryan was dead. Harlow was infatuated with Sean. Joe was not. Harlow would be having sex with Sean in front of a camera, not Joe.

It takes some extraordinary concoction to get Joe into a locked house while Bryan was alive. Getting Harlow in the house is a given.

Also A-1, I don't understand your focus on 28 stab wounds. Stabbing a corpse would not require any special training.

Harlow had both emotional and financial motivation to kill Bryan. He also had easy opportunity to do so. Joe had only financial motivation and no opportunity. Despite speculation that maybe Harlow let him in or Joe got in on his own, neither scenario could have been planned or anticipated by Harlow and Joe. The only sure thing is Harlow could get in the house and kill Bryan. Any other plan would have been too stupid even for these two meth heads.

Albert said...

In other news, I sent Fleshjack 70 photos from the Austin Pride weekend thinking they might use some. Surprised the hell out of me but they used all 70. Sean has packed on a lot of muscle since you last saw him. Still a gentleman and charm. http://blog.fleshjack.com/?p=21728

jim said...

Yeah this 28 post mortum thingy has been a talking point from the beginning. I'm not impressed with it.

IMO, ANYONE who kills someone with a knife to the throat, in a sudden strike, is going to have to so much pent up adrenaline in the seconds leading up to decision to act that 28 additional blows will come quite naturally.

What makes using this in Harlow's defense extra weak is that he admitted on the BBTs to projecting his hated stepfather onto Kocis at the moment of attack. So, you have it straight from the horse's mouth. I just don't know what more you need on this.

Anonymous said...

Albert:

The 28 post mortem stab wounds is extremely important. Picture the amount of time it would take to do the stabbing, the blood and pieces of flesh scattering around. Think also of the amount of energy that needs to spent, and the anger needed to continue stabbing a person you know is already dead.

The person doing the stabbing is in an uncontrollable frenzy. It has to be a series of rapid thrusts otherwise the stabber would get tired and cease or the stabbing would last 15 or 20 minutes or so (at a rate of slightly more than 2 stabs a minute)

We know Joe is a manic obsessive and has anger management problems. Harlow is much more laid back and slower to act. If as imputed Harlow did this for financial gain then the death of Bryan would be sufficient for him to cease trying to kill him. On the other hand if Joe killed because he was in a jealous rage, or because he was upset that Bryan was getting FREE SEX with Harlow, the 28 stab wounds become more pausible.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Jim:

Attorney D'Andrea would agree with the first part of your analysis. He commented to local paper that he thought Harlow had gotten too combative with Melnick in the cross examination.

I would agree that after three weeks of trial, Harlow had become frustrated. Whether true or not, he had watched the prosecutor paint him as an uncaring individual who had brutally murdered St. Bryan of Luzerne, abused his corpse, robbed his house and then burnt it down. He watched as friends and clients testified against him, and then he had the ultimate betrayal when Joe took the stand and then refused to testify destroying his best hope of freedom. Up until this point he had remained in control. Then he gets on the stand, totally unprepared and he gets cross examined extremely embarrasingly effectively by Melnick. There is a breaking point in all of us, and by this time, Harlow could not fully contain his need to verbally get back at the Prosecutor.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

I have been reluctant to wade into the relationship of Sean and Grant to this murder.

First, I would completely absolve Sean of any wish to have Bryan killed.

My best guess is that Bryan had continually told Sean that withouth his (Bryan's) aid, Sean would be nothing. His language probably included referring to him as a piece of feces.

More than anything Sean wanted to show Bryan that he could be a major player in Gay Porn. This required Bryan to be alive when Sean achieved this.

Grant might not feel this way, but he was aware of how much out of control Joe was. Survival instincts would have prevented him from going along with any murder plot with Joe involved.

Yet, we have the odd saying by Sean to Jody Wheeler "that Harlow blew it". This implies that Sean,
(not necessarily Grant) and Harlow had some kind of deal but Harlow went way beyond the agreement which had not intended that Bryan be killed or even injured.

But I am probably doing the same thing that I have been complaining that others have been doing, reading too much into a single sentence or action.

Anonymous One

Albert said...

No Anon 1. This time you are reaching a lot. No offense. It's just that I was in the thick of it at the time and remain friends with both Sean and Grant to this day. This was a business deal which from Sean and Grant's perspective ended and expensive legal battle. Sean had no need or desire to prove anything to Bryan. Sean had made Bryan's money and he knew it.

"Harlow blew it." is in reference to killing the business deal. Not to killing Bryan.

Bryan told Sean, Grant and the rest of the world a lot of crap. The only thing that might be trusted from him was a signed contract, maybe not even that.

Also, 28 stab wounds can be done in less than a minute, particularly in an adrenaline rush.

Anonymous said...

Albert:

Don't you think that Sean would have loved to have shown Bryan how little Sean needed him? It would have been the icing on the cake.

Mind you not in person, but just knowing that Bryan was reading the same glowing reviews.

and while 28 stab wounds can be done in a minute, what kind of person is having this adrenaline rush or as I would put it, manic frenzy. There would have to be a lot of hate or fear driving this rush.

Anonymous One

PS Thanks for the explanation of Harlow blowing it. That make sense.

will g said...

I just went back and read some of the chapter on the BBT's, prompted by Jim's comment about what Harlow said about his stepfather. The quote from him that really caught my eye this time is when he says of his stepfather's molestation that "it's what kind of made the whole decision kind of easy, almost a little too easy." In context, there is absolutely no question that the "decision" he's referring to was the decision to murder Kocis.

A-1, is there anything more that needs to be said to debunk all of your arguments trying to exonerate Harlow? I think not.

will g said...

Also, earlier I made a comment about how Harlow had put his foot in his mouth on the stand when he said Joe and Bryan had knocked over the cocktail table and wine glasses during their struggle, when crime-scene photos contradict that. I THOUGHT I was making a joke when I said to A-1 "DON'T say they could have tidied up before setting the house on fire." I had completely forgotten this passage in the current chapter:

[Melnick] succeeded in having Cuadra admit that the cocktail table was not tipped over in some violent fight, as he had described earlier, but Cuadra had an explanation for that too: "Please keep in mind that Joseph stayed in the house for fifteen, twenty minutes" and could have righted the table and put the wine glasses back in the kitchen sink, he said.

Anonymous said...

Will:

There are several problems with the Black Beach tapes when it comes to Harlow describing his relationship with his step-father.

The first and more important is whether this was the occaision when he describes how he was afraid that his step father would molest his siblings. He stated that (since he was gay or words to that effect) it was better than his stepfather molested solely him. So the decision he is referring to could be to continue having sex with his step-father.

The second problem is that the tapes have time gaps in them, when either nothing was said or portions were unrecordable. So what he was referring to may relate back to the previous sentence or idea rather than forward to the next block of discussion which was the murder itself.

{Even there, he describes the situation as being sick. I always thought he meant that his mother had done something to his step father like throwing him out, and that Harlow was getting guilty pleasure from his stepfather being punished}

Lastly, Harlow talks almost in a stream of conciousness jumping from one subject to another without reference as whom or what he is talking about. This is what makes Harlow such a lousy witness.

It creates inconsistencies even before he takes that stand. Look at the Roeker tape of him, and you will find the same problems when he is telling his story there. No direct and clear answers to the questions put to him. The Roeker tapes were worse because the Roeker never asks the follow up questions that should have been asked.

Anonymous One

will g said...

In the words of Albert, you are reaching A-1. I will just quote a passage from the book that follows that quote:

Did Cuadra substitute Kocis for the man who had allegedly molested hm as a boy? Only Cuadra knows that for certain, but the remarks that kept coming reveal that "the whole decision" to kill Kocis was apparently made easier by either perceived mistreatment by Kocis of Lockhart and other young men or by Cuadra's projection of an image of his own childhood molester upon Bryan Kocis.

Again, there is absolutely NO question what "the whole decision" is referring to. The authors had access to the entire transcript that the jury did, and if there was any ambiguity they would not have written that.

Anonymous said...

Will:

To quote your qoute, "only Harlow knows". Hardley a definative statement to rely upon. The book is only guessing that the relationship between Harlow and his stepfather had anything to do with the Kocis Murder.

In my opinion, Harlow mentioned it primarily to get sympathy first from Sean and Grant (remember Sean's prior history before he even met Bryan) and then from the jury when he testified. I believe that D'Andrea made a big mistake in bringing that up when guilt was being determined by the jury. It should have been saved for extenuation and mitigation where it belonged.

Again, we don't really know what Harlow was referring to, and you guys would not believe anything he said unless it was incriminating. I tend to discount what Harlow says since much of it is an act trying to say what he thinks the listener wants to hear.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Sigh. Of course "only Harlow knows" what was going on in his head, but they are NOT "guessing" when it comes to what "the whole decision" means. His words "REVEAL" the meaning. One thing's for sure, he did not mean that the molestation "made it easier" for him to decide to continue being molested. I think even you can admit that argument is laughable.

Albert said...

O.J. Simpson was found not guilty. The jury system is far from perfect. I think it is in England that have a system of 'professional' jurors. I wouldn't trust that with a stick.

Critical thinking is not taught in public schools. To go from acquittal to guilty in a matter of hours after all evidence is presented is a clear indication those jurors were not voting on principle.

Weak minds are easily swayed.

will g said...

Update 38:

Actually from reading this section and the juror interview that isn't in the book, it seems to me that the two who initially voted not guilty didn't really think he was not guilty, they were confused about the law regarding conspiracy. We have the juror's quote that isn't in the book, "There were several that couldn't put the knife in his hand." And amazingly, after closing arguments and jury instructions spelling out the law, they STILL had to ask the judge for clarification.

After lunch, some of the female jurors still remained unconvinced and sought clarification about whether they could in fact find Harlow guilty of murder even if they believed he was only an accomplice. The judge confirmed they could...

I find it absolutely flabbergasting that they would even have to ask such a question. And the judge's answer shouldn't have been that they could, but that they MUST.

My takeaway from this isn't that there was ever a chance of a hung jury, because I don't think there really was. It's that not a single juror believed Harlow's story. It seems that even the ones who initially (mistakenly) voted not guilty thought he was an accomplice.

jim said...

"I find it absolutely flabbergasting that they would even have to ask such a question."

I think they were desperately looking for any excuse to vote not guilty.

will g said...

Possibly, but the fact that they thought being "only" an accomplice might be that excuse is apalling.

will g said...

By the way I'm not sure if you're going to cover this, but those same four jurors did use that as an excuse not to give him the death penalty. Harlow should thank his lucky stars that those jurors apparently REMAINED confused about PA law, which as I've said many times treats being "only" a conspirator and being the one who carries out the crime exactly the same.

Albert said...

But he is so cute when he lies. Don't kill him.

Anonymous said...

Guys:

Conspiracy to commit murder and murder are two separate crimes. In this case, the planning to kill Bryan and (this is most important) taking some step to accomplish that murder (but not necessarily resulting in the murder)would be sufficient to be found guilty of conspiracy. Murder requires that somebody actually gets murdered.

In Harlow's case after he was found quilty, the judge gave him two separate life without parole sentences, one for conspiracy and one for murder. I am not sure but I believe the sentences run consecutively and not concurrently.

Frankly I thought this was overkill (pun intended, of course).

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Jim is right, Harlow could have been found not quilty. What was required was the defense to show (by other than Harlow's testimony) that Joe was at the scene of the murder. If they could show him inside Bryan's house, and kept Harlow off the stand, I think enough doubt would have existed for some if not all of the charges against him to have failed.

Naturally if Joe had testified in Harlow's favor saying that he had planned the murder and killed Bryan, and other exonerated Harlow from prior knowledge, we probably would not be discussing this case on this blog.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Yes A-1, I would agree that Harlow could have been found not guilty if the defense was able to place Joe inside the house during the murder. Unfortunately they weren't able to do that because he wasn't.

Essentially what you're saying is if the trial had taken place in an alternate universe with a completely different set of facts, they could have gotten Harlow off.

jim said...

I think that if Joe had fallen on his sword as planned, and exonerated Harlow (ie, lied), and somehow Joe's story survived cross examination (iffy), combined with some outside pressure on the jury to make them think they were doing the right thing (court room filled with FREE HARLOW t-shirts as planned), then maybe a hung jury or acquittal was possible.

All of the above would have had to be present IMO.

jim said...

And I'm assuming in the above scenario Harlow could then opt not to take the stand at all (which as we know now in hindsight would have been hugely beneficial to him).

will g said...

"Iffy" is an understatement, considering Joe had already given a sworn statement contradicting that testimony. Not to mention the possible consequences that would follow for his plea deal, as we've already discussed, when I also described that whole episode as a "charade."

Joe "falling on his sword" for Harlow could only happen in that aforementioned alternate universe.

Anonymous said...

First, filling the courtroom with Free Harlow T-Shirts would not have been allowed by the Judge, and even if it had, it would have little effect. Considering the conservative nature of Luzerne County, it probably would have had the opposite effect on the jurors.
So lets eliminate that from the calculus.

Second, putting Joe in the car is not alternate universe. Besides myself, Jim has him coming into the house after the murder and setting the fire, and Dwayne has Harlow holding Bryan's hands while Joe does the deed. Will, you seem to be only one who believes that Joe stayed in the inn the entire time.

Keep in mind that the plea statement by Joe was drawn up solely for the purposes of the plea deal. No one cared about its veracity as long it put Joe away for life. Since all other charges, including arson, theft, abuse of corpse were dropped as a result of the plea deal, containing information in that statement that made Joe appear guilty of those crimes might have been awkward to say the least. Relying on that plea bargain agreement is the same as relying on Joe telling the truth. This is after all "Serial Killer Joseph Kerekes" who last publicized statement says that Harlow is telling the truth and is not guilty.

In fact had the jury gotten to hear all the things that Joe has said over the years that we know about, starting with the kind words he said about Jim (in 2007) right up to the comments made by Joe to PC, that would have affected their opinion. Not to say that Harlow would be a free man today, but maybe facing a much reduced sentence.

Anonymous One

will g said...

A-1, I said putting Joe in the house during the murder is "alternate universe," not in the car. I have no idea what your reference is to DeWayne and Harlow "holding Bryan's hand," but I'm not referencing anyone else's theories, only the facts as we know them. But as far as that goes, I highly doubt I'm the ONLY person who thinks Joe probably stayed in motel, since there's absolutely no evidence proving otherwise. However I feel pretty safe in saying your theory about Harlow letting Joe in without Bryan noticing only so he could steal Bryan's 2257's is unique to you.

Joe's sworn statement would have been used to completely destroy his "falling on the sword" credibility, thus rendering it null and void. The main reason it may not have voided his plea agreement is that Luzerne County wouldn't have wanted to pay for a trial when he was already convicted.

This is after all "Serial Killer Joseph Kerekes" who last publicized statement says that Harlow is telling the truth and is not guilty.

Please enlighten me, I'm unfamiliar with this "publicized statement."

DeWayne In San Diego said...

"second, putting Joe in the car is not alternate universe. Besides myself, Jim has him coming into the house after the murder and setting the fire, and Dwayne has Harlow holding Bryan's hands while Joe does the deed. Will, you seem to be only one who believes that Joe stayed in the inn the entire time."

Hmm not sure where THAT comes from I will admit at one time being in the Evil Manipulative Joe/Harlow is a poor abused boy camp in blog speculations but there were several reasons for some of those musings.

If you look back far enough especially before the actual arrest I can tell you just about where the blogsphere was on the likely culpability of the then "4" suspects.

In order of who was most likely to be the most "guilty"

1.Joe
2.Grant
3.Sean
4,Harlow

And you could switch Grant and Sean around depending on if you were in the Sean is a manipulative little bitch camp. (BB)

Yes pre arrest many were ready to blame the older Svengali BF's for setting up this conspiracy to murder Bryan in Vegas.

With poor little Sean and Harlow playing footsies and drunk not paying attention.

My views leading up to the arrest of Joe and Harlow I still carried over some of that bias against Joe and in favor of Harlow.

Post arrest I got a bit of an off the record reality check about what the authorities real thinking was about the murder.

To say I was very crestfallen when I was reminded that Harlow was the likely killer would be an understatement.

I do recall PC and I musing about Joe and was he in the motel or in the back of the suv out of sight when Harlow drove up.

I was of the belief Joe was close by (again latent idea that Joe was the master manipulator here and had to be close)

Problem as I recall PC pointing out if Joe was discovered hiding in the SUV (what if Bryan had walked out to meet Harlow and spotted Joe?) My other take was maybe Joe was let out around the block but this was the dead of January and a man like Joe walking around would have attracted attention.

The safest way for the plan to move forward getting Harlow into the house and more importantly making sure Bryan was relaxed meant Joe HAD TO BE as far away as possible.

I admit in 2007 I did not want to BELIEVE that but by Harlows trial I was KNEW Harlow was the sole actor in the living room.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Hello Jim kudos to your dedication to keep this marathon session going ;-)

Something Will said earlier in update 38 I want to comment on.

Update 38:

"Actually from reading this section and the juror interview that isn't in the book, it seems to me that the two who initially voted not guilty didn't really think he was not guilty, they were confused about the law regarding conspiracy. We have the juror's quote that isn't in the book, "There were several that couldn't put the knife in his hand." And amazingly, after closing arguments and jury instructions spelling out the law, they STILL had to ask the judge for clarification.

After lunch, some of the female jurors still remained unconvinced and sought clarification about whether they could in fact find Harlow guilty of murder even if they believed he was only an accomplice. The judge confirmed they could...

I find it absolutely flabbergasting that they would even have to ask such a question. And the judge's answer shouldn't have been that they could, but that they MUST.

My takeaway from this isn't that there was ever a chance of a hung jury, because I don't think there really was. It's that not a single juror believed Harlow's story. It seems that even the ones who initially (mistakenly) voted not guilty thought he was an accomplice."


YES! Legally you are correct Will the instruction should have been MUST however our Judge was a former prosecutor and had some training in HOW you talk to a jury from a prosecutor's perspective.

Once empaneled most jurors KNOW they are supposed to follow the law.

They also know without maybe fully understanding the term jury nullification they cannot BE ORDERED by a judge to reach a particular verdict. As we have seen numerous times Jury's can and will stubbornly dig in heels.

If the word MUST had been used I have no doubt one of those two jurors would have dug in and shut it down.

I witnessed just such a scenario on a Federal jury I was on, it resulted in us being deadlocked for two days before our foreman broke thru the obstinacyo one juror and declared this is NOT a Twelve Angry Men case.

After the verdict was reached in the post trial lawyer discussion the female juror in my case admitted she thought the judge was a Son of a Bitch. and DIDNT like how Uppity and condescending he was.

And he had used those exact word's

YOU MUST find..

Judge PPO was the BEST possible judge for this case can you imagine how this might have played out with say

an arrogant self important dictatorial gasbag on the bench?

A Mistrial for Harlow

Albert said...

My views developed much slower. I knew where Sean and Grant were at the time of the murder so they were never a question for me. Between Harlow and Joe, I soon discerned that Joe was the negotiator. He and Grant seemed to work out the generalities between each other.

I had seen Harlow hold a man in the air against a shower wall while he pounded his ass. That took a lot of strength, with or without drugs. Joe did not talk about Bryan's death. Harlow had much to say. When Joe negotiated a plea deal, it cinched it for me. That Harlow would continue to a trial and even take the stand just proved to me he was not all there. The other arguments I have made here made it clear who cut Bryan's throat.

Also anon, I could open my boy scout knife with one hand when I was 15. Using one hand on ones on crotch is not unacceptable or unexpected while kissing another guy. I think I described how it happened quite plausibly. Of course I would.

Anonymous said...

"Judge PPO was the BEST possible judge for this case can you imagine how this might have played out with say an arrogant self important dictatorial gasbag on the bench? DeWayne

can't tell if you realize just how funny this statement is, when you consider what was going on with "PPO" at the time. According to the feds, PPO's father was knee deep in a ponzi scheme at the time. And there is PPO being photographed at Conahan's Florida Condo with a convicted drug dealer. A former prosecutor now judge in a photograph smiling and sharing drinks with a convicted drug dealer.

In general, two people charged with the same crime is a prosecutor's nightmare because they are likely to blame each other. The idiot discussion going on here simply highlights how impossible it was / is to know who actually killed Kocis.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

"Judge PPO was the BEST possible judge for this case can you imagine how this might have played out with say an arrogant self important dictatorial gasbag on the bench? DeWayne

can't tell if you realize just how funny this statement is, when you consider what was going on with "PPO" at the time. According to the feds, PPO's father was knee deep in a ponzi scheme at the time. And there is PPO being photographed at Conahan's Florida Condo with a convicted drug dealer. A former prosecutor now judge in a photograph smiling and sharing drinks with a convicted drug dealer."

Anon I stand by what I said..

PPO was the Judge the ONLY Judge the broken scandal ridden Luzerne County courts could turn to to try this Capital Case.

They got the result they wanted Joe pled out, Harlow was convicted there was no mistrial.

Best possible outcome.

Even a crooked judge can be a good one

I might add the cynic in me would add I am well aware the American Justice system only serves to present a facade of fairness.

In that regard the Harlow Cuadra trial accomplished just that.

Luzerne County voters at the next election imposed their retribution based on PPO's mistakes off the bench not his judicial record.

I dont see how you can think this case was a prosecutors nightmare.

It seems like a dream-case which Melnick seemed very hyped up about after the verdict.

Who killed Bryan Kocis?

Doesnt matter at all

Conspiracy to commit murder both were equally guilty and the punishment should be the same.

Here in California men have been convicted for Murder who were not even physically in the state when the crime was committed.

Indeed if Sean and Grant HAD been in a conspiracy to have Bryan killed they would have been just as guilty as Harlow and Joe.

Both morally and legally.

will g said...

The idiot discussion going on here simply highlights how impossible it was / is to know who actually killed Kocis.

So good to have you back Mr. Everhard! And here I'd thought you'd retreated with your tail between your legs...

And welcome back DeWayne! I guess your ears were burning when A-1 invoked your name (or close to it).

Haven't really digested all the new reading material yet, be back later.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Hi Will yes I missed the Sept 6th update Albert texted me last night.

Albert said...

The discussion here may suit a very small audiance, it may seem silly and is often speculative but I wouldn't say 'idiot.' Anonymous has kept the discussion going for some time and I have found it enjoyable. It does not appear Anonymous actively followed the case at the time so some confusion is expected. DeWayne and I have stalked Sean since Brent Corrigan first appeared. I believe Will is also an original fan. Jim and PC came in much later but at a critical time for the subject of discussion. I hope we have been gentle but firm in correcting confusion. Anonymous has likewise presented his theories respectfully. Their is nothing idiotic about that. Odd perhaps.

will g said...

Not an "original fan" Albert, I've said before that I paid little to no attention to BC before this case. And I believe A-1 has followed it very closely, he certainly has a better memory for details than I do, though of course I think his conclusions are wrong.

Albert said...

I am corrected.

Anonymous said...

I dont see how you can think this case was a prosecutors nightmare.

It seems like a dream-case which Melnick seemed very hyped up about after the verdict.
DeWayne

It was "that other former DA David Lupas" whose father the Feds are prosecuting for operating a Ponzi scheme.

Melnick and Luzerne County are still trying to get a conviction against Selenski when Selenski was found with dead bodies buried in his front yard.

will g said...

OK, I'll post some thoughts on the new comments in the order they appear:

1) Yes DeWayne, it seems that A-1 was dredging up some ancient theorizing of yours as evidence that he is not alone in thinking that not only was Joe inside the house but was the sole guilty party, which I described as the "alternate universe" version of events. I'll just say this is another example of his great memory for detail in following this case on the blogs. I don't think even you remember exactly what it is he's referring to. If this was indeed a musing of yours dating all the way back before the arrest, I think its relevance is dubious.

2) Thank you for showing A-1 that I'm not the ONLY person who thinks Joe probably stayed in the motel! I've stated my reasons for thinking that already, but yours is also convincing -- those two were plenty dumb, but not dumb enough to risk Joe being sighted by Kocis sitting in his driveway. It would be even worse if he was caught trying to HIDE in the car.

3) As for PPO instructing the jury that they "could" rather than "must," I think I made too much of that. The book paraphrases the judge, we have no idea if that's what he actually said. I think it's likely that he did impress upon them in no uncertain terms that that they had to follow the law, and this is likely just imprecise wording on the authors' part. It's not a quote, and there's no footnote citation of their source for that passage.

Of course it would be highly improper for the judge to try and influence the verdict, but his job was to make sure the jurors' understood the law and followed it. If he did say "must" there would be nothing improper about it, despite how your fellow juror felt.

4) Mr. Everhard, despite your saying this "idiot discussion" demonstrates "how impossible it was/is to know who actually killed Kocis," I deduce from your comment that you do at least think it was one of them. That's progress! I wasn't sure if you still thought they had been set up and railroaded by the two evil judges and everyone else in Luzerne County.

will g said...

Oh one more thing: A-2 derisively said "can't tell if you realize just how funny this statement is" to DeWayne after he praised PPO. This derisive comment was based on two supposed "facts," one being that his father was being prosecuted for a Ponzi scheme. Now how the activities of a judge's father are supposed to be relevant to his conduct on the bench is beyond me. But then A-2 RETRACTED that accusation, admitting it was some prosecutor, not PPO, with the Ponzi-scheme father.

So A-2's laughter about PPO being a good judge was mostly based on mistaken identity. Yet I don't see any apology to DeWayne, or PPO, in that retraction. The only other thing that made DeWayne's remarks so hilarious is that photo with a drug dealer, which also has no bearing on his ability to be a fair and competent judge.

Anonymous said...

They got the result they wanted Joe pled out, Harlow was convicted there was no mistrial. Best possible outcome. DeWayne

Clearly not.

Cuadra's Trial Judge was booted out of office. The DA during Cuadra's trial was booted out of office. Melnick probably still has a job because the new DA couldn't fire him.

Albert said...

I never thought much of the photo. I take photos of public events. You can catch some weird stuff. Interesting pictures but meaningless.

Albert said...

In other news. About a week ago Sean hit his head hard in a fall. He says he has lost mobility in one leg and arm. He is saying it may be permanent. Time will tell.

will g said...

Cuadra's Trial Judge was booted out of office. The DA during Cuadra's trial was booted out of office.

Neither of which had ANYTHING to do with this case.

Geoff Harvard said...

Albert, after reading your post, I went over and looked at Sean's Twitter entry. It's a Chappaquiddick story. You don't get that kind of injury by tripping and falling five feet seven inches. You might be injured that way way getting the dog fuck beat out of you with a ball bat or being thrown off a balcony. He also mentions matters coming to a head in his personal life, as if that never happened before. Try looking through SDPD police reports for the appropriate date; I'm not that curious.

San Diego reader said...

Sean is a known partyboi and blacks out and has mystery falls.

He had a bad incident in Canada last year before some awards show in LA

He is lookin rough everyone sees him in town knows it.

Anonymous said...

Will at 9-29-2013 at 10:53 PM:

As you recall from PC's blog, they had a letter from Joe which they extracted. The last line was that Harlow was telling the truth.

I only point this out that Joe can not be believed, and relying on his sworn statement in the plea bargain is as futile as relying on any other his other statements.

Whether or not his testimony would stand up under cross examination anymore than Harlow's did is a matter of conjecture. However, the jury would not have exposed to Joe as well as we who have been following this case for years. In fact Joe may be a much better liar on the stand and the jury would believe what he had to say.

But assume for the moment that Joe did take the stand, and gets pulverised by Melnick. In the course of the cross examination, Joe explodes. The defense could then use this to convince the jury that Joe was the person who sliced Bryan's throat rather than Harlow.

Anonymous One

Sorry, had a life to lead, and was away for a few days. Its not like we personally are going to determine the fates of Harlow and Joe.

Anonymous said...

Albert at 7:15 September 30, 2013

Thank you. It is important to show respect for other people's ideas. It cuts down on eating crow when they are right.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Will G , September 30 at 11:25 PM.

as to your point two, do you remember when Rob posted those photos of the crime scene. There was a long driveway that went far back of the house. I got the impression that a car parked where Rob said it was parked, would be out of sight from the house. Second this was January when it gets dark really early. Last, since it snowed that night (remember the television crews with the light snow falling) I have assumed that it was overcast at the very least when Harlow arrived. Under those conditions unless there was a street light nearby, I do not believe Bryan would have been able to tell if anyone was in the car.

Of course you could argue it was not what Bryan could have seen but what Joe thought that Bryan could have seen. Joe could have dropped Harlow off at the front door drove around the block and then parked the car shortly thereafter.

Last, if you recall back in the days before Joe made his plea deal, there was a claim by him then that he stayed in the motel the entire time. The question arose on this blog "was there any proof that he did?". As you recall there were no witnesses that saw him in the room during the time that Harlow left and return. The correspondence he made during this time was by sending pleas for money to clients so Harlow could go to Photography Classes. That correspondence was sent by E-Mail.

Also there was a telephone call from the purchased cell phone to another cell phone owned by Harlow and Joe. It was made minutes before the firetrucks arrived. It was my impression that other cell phone also bounced off the same transponder as the purchased one did. {See my previous remarks how one of them was in the house and one of them was in the car at the time}

This question could be settled by tracing which transponders the computer and other cell phone bounce off of. As you recall, there was a transponder in Dallas Township that the purchased cell phone signal bounced off of. Most likely the Inn would have been near a closer transponder in Wilkes Barre. Regretably, we do not have access to that kind of electronic forensics.

Anonymous One

will g said...

In fact Joe may be a much better liar on the stand and the jury would believe what he had to say.

Oh so you admit that if Joe testified to exonerate Harlow, he'd be lying! Thank you!

will g said...

As for the motel issue, you can be sure that all of that was investigated. If there was any transponder evidence that proved Joe was lying, they wouldn't have allowed him to lie about it in his statement.

will g said...

As you recall from PC's blog, they had a letter from Joe which they extracted. The last line was that Harlow was telling the truth.

This? The last line is about the visitor's list.

will g said...

He is lookin rough everyone sees him in town knows it.

His looks are well-documented in the copious close-up selfies he posts on Twitter. We can judge for ourselves if he's looking "rough" (he isn't).

Is that you Grant??

PC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
will g said...

OK A-1, I found the letter you must be referring to. It's the first line on what is actually the last page of a letter, and it's impossible to really know what "it was the truth" means without the preceding sentences. What was the truth? "It" apparently refers to something he mentioned on the previous page that we have no way of knowing. The fact that he says Harlow feeling betrayed led him to "blame the murder on me" does not indicate to me that he's saying Harlow was being truthful.

will g said...

In fact, I would bet that "it was the truth" is a reference to his own statement on the stand. "This is the only reason" pretty obviously refers to his decision not to testify.

Anonymous said...

Will:

No the letter is quite clear. In it Joe says that Harlow is telling the truth meaning is that Joe did the deed to Bryan.

Of course Joe has said other things in the past that would contradict same. Reluctantly, in this case, I have to discount what Joe is saying.

As to Joe having a better 'presentation' on the witness stand, that doesn't mean anything about whether Joe would be telling the truth or not. Again I believe the best thing for the defense is for Joe to "lose it" on cross examination. Then the defense could get the jury to believe that this was the more likely individual to have committed the murder.

Finally, Will you have an innocent faith that the prosecutor will only allow the defendant in a plea bargain to tell the truth. The prosecutor wants a conviction and appropriate sentence. In this case we know that Joe purchased the lighter fluid to help set the fire in Bryan's home. Yet I bet that no mention of that was made in his statement, and the charge of conspiracy to commit arson was dropped against him. Hardly the whole truth put down in the statement.

Of course, since Melnick {wisely} did not intend to put Joe on the stand, there was no need to have the statement free of contradictions with other evidence. Just enough to put Joe behind bars for life, and maybe enough to impeach him if he took the stand in Harlow's defense. Otherwise the prosecution had better things to do.

Anonymous One

will g said...

The letter is there for everyone to read. They can decide how "clear" it is.

I did not say the prosecutor required Joe to tell the whole truth and confess to everything, including crimes that he was not pleading guilty to. Only that he not lie about the crimes he was.

Anonymous said...

And if comes out that Joe was in the car, (but did nothing criminally more)what then? By your standards that would prosecutorial misconduct. Not sure it would help Harlow, but could Joe take advantage of it?

Keep in mind that illogical things happen in the law. Fruits of illegal actions are barred from trial (even if they could have been obtained from other sources) under the theory that it is better to have 10 criminals go free rather than 1 innocent person be found guilty.

Just musing over your position. I do not believe that the prosecutor did anything wrong though obviously A-2 might disagree with that.

Anonymous One

will g said...

And if comes out that Joe was in the car, (but did nothing criminally more)what then? By your standards that would prosecutorial misconduct.

Sorry A-1, but I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Maybe I'm slow today.

Joe was a proven conspirator, whether he stayed in the car or the motel. That's why he was convicted of murder. Where he was during the murder really doesn't matter, despite our endless debates over it.

will g said...

Just musing over your position. I do not believe that the prosecutor did anything wrong...

I'm still scratching my head trying to understand this. When did I say the prosecutor did anything wrong?

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Joe could have Stayed in Virginia Beach and he would have been just as culpable since he was a co-instigator of the Conspiracy to murder Bryan.

Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions..

Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law...

The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy...

California criminal law is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime. Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself...

A conspiracy conviction requires proof that a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.

so all this musing of where was Joe car,motel or walking around the block really doesn't matter in the least.

will g said...

Yes DeWayne, and all of that is true of PA law as well.

I said the prosecutor wouldn't have allowed Joe to maintain in his sworn statement that he stayed in the motel if there was proof, from cell-phone transponders or anything else, that he didn't. That does NOT mean his whereabouts during the murder matters as far as his legal culpability goes.

Anonymous said...

Will:

It is very simple. Make a leap of faith (or unfaith in your case) and assume that Joe was in the car and Melnick had reason to believe that Joe was in the car but was not absolutely sure, THEN

would having Joe sign a statement where he said he was in the inn the entire time

CONSTITUTE prosecutorial malfeasance.

By your standards everything in the plea bargaining statement has to be verified truthful in order to be included in that statement. I do not hold the prosecutor to that standard. As long as the material facts constituting the crime admitted to are included, the prosecution has done its duty. It is the DEFENSE COUNSEL (and JOE HAD THREE OF THEM WHEN HE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT) to insure that what their client signs does not come back to haunt the client.

I raise this because in your previous arguments you rely on the statement in the plea bargaining as a verifiable truth with each statement truthful and nothing but the truth. (We can leave out the whole truth in this case).

I then tried to be humerous and raise the potential of prosecutorial misconduct in a trial affecting the defendant in that trial. Since Joe's statement affects only Joe, prosecutorial misconduct in Joe's case would be grounds for Joe to have charges against him dismissed. {It is akin to a patricide claiming mercy because he was now an orphan}.

But since in my opinion Melnick did not (by virtue of this plea bargaining statement)commit prosecutorial misconduct, even if Joe lied in it.

As to rest of the arguments, Joe admitted to a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. Whether he stayed in the inn or went in the car, of course it is same as far the conspiracy goes and that fact is immaterial to Joe's conviction.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

DeWayne:

Usually conspiracy requires more than just discussing a crime with another person and that person then going ahead and committing that crime.

For example, two guys talk about going down to a drug store and how easy it would be to put a candy bar inside their pocket and walk out without paying. (Discussion of a criminal activity).
Four years later the second guy walks into a drug store and puts the candy bar in his pocket and is caught by the Cashier.

By your definition the other guy would be guilty of conspiracy even though he moved to Cleveland three years previously and not spoken or writen to the candy stealer since moving.

To be guilty of conspiracy, there would have to be more of a connection between the discussion to enter to a crime and its commission.

I would suggest some physical act like one guy distracting the cashier while other one shoplifted.

Obviously in the case of Bryan's murder, ASSUMING THAT HARLOW DID THE DEED (which I NOT admitting), Joe would have taken material acts to advance that crime, and would qualify as an accessory before the fact.

Anonymous One

will g said...

By your standards everything in the plea bargaining statement has to be verified truthful in order to be included in that statement.

I said no such thing. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer, but to repeat: The prosecutor would not allow him to swear to a PROVEN LIE, if such proof existed. That's why we can assume there is no proof of Joe's whereabouts during the murder, as you speculated there might be (transponders). I did not say that there had to be proof of the truthfulness of everything in the statement for the prosecutor to accept it.

I raise this because in your previous arguments you rely on the statement in the plea bargaining as a verifiable truth with each statement truthful and nothing but the truth.

As I hope is now clear, I did not do that.

But I am glad to see you agreeing that it makes no difference if he was in the motel or in the car, and perhaps we can finally put that issue to rest. (He was in the motel!)

will g said...

Not to speak for DeWayne, but yes everything you said about conspiracy is true. I think you also misinterpreted his comment. When he said "a certain illegal act" he didn't mean a hypothetical act that may or may not happen sometime in the future after a vague discussion, but the "certain" specific act, in this case the murder of Bryan Kocis, that the conspirators are being charged with.

Albert said...

Will, we have been able to digest this stuff for years so our thoughts are fairly entrenched in our minds. I am going to disagree on a point neither of us can prove. I think Joe did assist in removing items from Bryan's house only because I feel Joe had the mental stability to know what what was important.

i.e. The Kocis family has no proof of age of any of the models they are still profiting off.

Anonymous said...

The Kocis family has no proof of age of any of the models they are still profiting off.

What Luzerne County alleges was taken from Kocis' house should be viewed in context with the fact that Kocis' business in PA was criminalized.

It's like filing a police report because someone broke into your house and stole your cocaine.

Anonymous said...

in fact, if you substitute "selling coke" for "making gay porn" (both of which are criminalized in PA) ....

Cuadra and Kerkes allegedly killed some Luzerne County guy who ws openly selling coke from his basement and stole the coke dealer's computers, business records and items the coke dealer bought with money he made from selling coke.


It all becomes just one big fucking joke, like this blog and the book Cobra Killer

Anonymous said...

not to continue beating a dead horse but, the "proof of age" information for Kocis' models is all "contact information" for each and every person that Kocis paid to perform sex acts.

so, it is claimed that evidence supporting prostitution charges against kocis and cobra was stolen.

will g said...

Yes Mr. Everhard, I know the fact that making porn is illegal in PA is one of your favorite mantras. It is indeed technically "illegal" in all but two states, a law that is never enforced. Why don't you call the New York authorities and get Michael Lucas arrested for his criminal enterprise? (I know DeWayne would be delighted if you did.)

Anonymous said...

Albert:

I can picture Harlow taking the cameras (especially if he knew Bryan was not going to use them again). I am hoping that he did not, and that after the murder he went directly to the car and stayed there until Joe returned.

But the proof of ages documents, I always believed were destroyed in the fire. While of some value to Harlow and Joe if they were looking for new talent in their business, it would make more sense to let them burn in the house. Not that sense seem to play a role in this case. In fact I believe the documents were used as kindling along with the lighter fluid to start the fire. Keep in mind that the Virginia Beach police did not find the records when they raided the boydello. Forgotten, if they went up in flames with the master tapes at the subsequent barbeque described in the black beach tapes.

I would question your description of Joe as being the stable one. This is the guy who called Grant three times in one minute to get an answer to when they were going to film together after returning from Las Vegas. He is also the guy most likely to have obtained the logo "boys R us" after the previous owner almost was sliced (but not killed). Renee also had some choice words to say about him.

Harlow (if you eliminate the murder scene) never showed any unstable acts that anyone has mentioned.

But I do not think a stable mind was needed to destroy the proof of age documents along with Bryan's residence.

Anonymous One

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Anonymous said...

"in fact, if you substitute "selling coke" for "making gay porn" (both of which are criminalized in PA) ....

Cuadra and Kerkes allegedly killed some Luzerne County guy who ws openly selling coke from his basement and stole the coke dealer's computers, business records and items the coke dealer bought with money he made from selling coke."

will g said...


"Yes Mr. Everhard, I know the fact that making porn is illegal in PA is one of your favorite mantras. It is indeed technically "illegal" in all but two states, a law that is never enforced.

Why don't you call the New York authorities and get Michael Lucas arrested for his criminal enterprise? (I know DeWayne would be delighted if you did.)"

Correct Will technically illegal and one thing we have all learned from this long drawn out Cobra saga there is a lot of porn produced in the other 48 states.

Indeed to this day Richard Maturo's Ram Productions has continued to produce for over a decade in the state of Pennsylvania.

http://www.straightmenintrouble.com/smit_cmplnce.htm

The Kocis family sold the Cobra Catalog after his death despite the loss of Federally Required 2257 records. The Attorney Generals office in Washington DC was dutifully informed by yours truly of the absence of those records.

I was given a reply and thank you for the concern and bringing this to their attention. (something they were not legally required to do)

In 2013 Cobra Video is widely available world wide with 60 plus models for which to this day the legally required 2257 records are not available for inspection.

Brent Corrigans underage video's are still available for sale in most western democracy's despite being contraband under all UN Treatys and International law. (Child pornography)

Very obvious to me Law Enforcement has other priority's.

International Terrorism perhaps?

will g said...

To the best of my recollection, there has never been any confirmation that the 2257's were either stolen or destroyed in the fire. I think the story put out by the Kocis family is that they were kept at another location (a hair salon?) and that all of the proper documentation for the Cobra models still exists.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

No Will they were moved from the Hair Salon after an FBI visit (Robert mentioned this)

They were in Bryans home and assumed lost since nothing was recovered.

We know Joe and Harlow claimed to have taken the file cabinet and later destroyed records but I have believed that was doubtful hyperbole they probably used a fair number of those files as kindling.

What I did put out there mainly an attempt to get some public acknowledgment is that Robert Wagner more than likely had a backup of the 2257 records (digital) in NYC.

Any physical records at Bryans home were obviously destroyed. I doubt Joe and Harlow took them and even if they did no records were recovered.

The Hair Salon as a repository was pre 2007 they were in Bryans home when he was murdered.

will g said...

Oh OK, I just have murky memories of all of this being discussed on PC's blog. I do seem to recall that the Kocis family, i.e. his sister, is adamant that all of the documentation still exists, either from backup digital files or copies held at another location.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Will the law is also badly written which several Federal Judges have stated indeed for most of 2006 until just this past summer 2257 was basically suspended pending an appeals court decision.

Then you have THIS HUGE contradiction.

Records of models are supposed to be maintained? Correct?

Yet only primary producers must have those records (the filming studios)

The secondary producer (who sells or provides content they have purchased) CLAIMS exemption from record keeping.

Studmall claims just that on their 2257 statement.

The owners and operators of this Website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 18 USC section 2257) of any of the visual content contained in the Website.

you will note they don't even LIST Cobra in the 2257 statement despite being the exclusive USA distributor of Cobra Video.

As for Cobra Video who ever controls and pays the bills to maintain that website is still violating 2257 each and every day since January 24th 2007.

http://www.cobravideo.com/compliance.htm

Since the Compliance Video statement is obviously false.

Again no one cares

will g said...

At any rate, getting back to Harlow and Joe, I agree that it's highly unlikely they stole or intentionally destroyed the 2257's. Sure they stole electronics that were out in the open, but they're going to take the time to locate and rifle through paperwork? That's partly why I think A-1's theory about Joe sneaking into the house to steal them is silly. Where is he going to look? So if they weren't found in the house after the fire, I think there does have to be at least a sliver of doubt that they were there in the first place.

will g said...

Oh sorry, you did say they may have intentionally used them as kindling. I just still have a hard time believing that was so important to them that they would have taken the time to look for them, when they knew they had to flee as quickly as possible after the murder.

Anonymous said...

DeWayne In San Diego .. the law is also badly written which several Federal Judges have stated indeed for most of 2006 until just this past summer 2257 was basically suspended pending an appeals court decision.

While you bemoan the feds not taking Kocis / Cobra into federal court, we know that DUMB ASS BRYAN KOCIS PLACED HIMSELF IN FEDERAL COURT BEFORE A FEDERAL JUDGE.

Bryan kocis (child molester / gay pornographer) was stupid enough to place himself in federal court before a no doubt conservative federal judge?

Anonymous said...

uh when? to what effect?
What was the outcome?
Was not Bryan Kocis a free man on January 24th 2007?
an UNINDICTED Free Man?

With only one plea entered previously in a state court?

With his death that is the extent of Bryan Kocis criminal record.

The only Federal Judge Bryan Kocis appeared before was a Bankruptcy court. Civil not Criminal

will g said...

Is Mr. Everhard arguing with himself? Or did Anonymous Three just make his debut?

DeWayne In San Diego said...

LMAO I wonder Will I noticed that come up on my email feed. ;-0

Anonymous said...

Was not Bryan Kocis a free man on January 24th 2007?

he was at least free of his head

Albert said...

I guess I find it credible that Harlow and Joe took the records. First because they said they did. Not that reason can always be attributed to these two but why make up an irrelevant crime and admit to having committed it? Well, obviously they were trying to prove their loyalty to Sean and Grant but in so doing they reveal they knew how important those records were. Motive is revealed.

Second, if Robert had backup copies I believe he would have said so. We know his continued involvement was necessary for passwords etc. Recall, Cobra subsequently used the Police headquarters as the address of the proof of age documents. The police of course denied this was true. This claim may appear to have been someones since of humor but I think it more likely to have been an assumption by Cobra, Robert, et. al, as the police would have removed all pertinent evidence. In other words, if backup records existed, it would have made better business since to use the location of those backup documents rather than rely on the hope the police had them. But if hope is all you have, go with it.

Anonymous said...

Will at 12:39 on October 6:

It was Albert's Theory that Joe snuck into the house to steal the 2257s, not mine.

His theory is not silly since one of the charges that Harlow and Joe were charged with was tampering evidence and for which Harlow was convicted. (The 2257s would be evidence in any prospective trial between Bryan and Sean(et al).

A good case can be argued that the purpose of the visit to Luzerne County was for the records to be destroyed with the belief that this would put Bryan out of business and let Sean and Grant swap films with Joe and Harlow. What better way to destroy the records than to burn down Bryan's house where they were stored. And then things got out of hand and Bryan was sliced and diced.

Even though I do not believe that theory to be correct (please do not tag me with it), it is on the other range of pausibility, and I would not call it silly.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Guys:

I have always found it uncredible that either Joe or Harlow would know where to look for smoke detectors, master tapes, 2257s in a house that neither had ever been to before.

I would agree with Will that having time to find those 2257s does seem improbable. The cameras were easy to spot since presumeably Harlow was to have a screen shot as a result of the interview. The Master Tapes could have been on shelves in the living room or a study next door but I doubt that many were taken. If there was a study or office where the master tapes were stored, presumably a file cabinet would have there as well. (Would Bryan lock that filing cabinet, or would he do the same thing I did with mine and left the keys in the lock so they would not get lost).

The smoke detectors is something that none of you have picked up. As you recall the Fire Department said that they were unscrewed from the wall as part of the proof of arson. Yet the neighbors heard the smoke detectors go off because the batteries were still in them. I believe that this could be discribed as a red herring in a detective novel.

Like Will's discription of the 2257s, how would either Joe or Harlow know how many detectors were in the building or where they were located. It is my belief that the smoke detectors were never tampered with because Bryan was unsure where he wanted to located them or converesely was unsure where to move them to. Unscrewing the smoke detectors rather than yanking them out or just removing the batteries is akin to putting the coffee table upright after Bryan and Joe had knocked it over (including replacing the wine glasses)prior to burning the house down.

Anonymous One

will g said...

A-1, I'm not going to go searching for it but I distinctly recall it was you who speculated that Harlow could have unlocked or opened the door for Joe thinking that all he was going to do was look for and steal the 2257's. Not Albert. It was one of your "Harlow is innocent" theories, and Albert has never argued that Harlow is innocent.

Albert said...

I never suggested Joe "snuck" in. Harlow would have let him in after Bryan was dead. No need to rush at that point. No need to dawdle either but they could quietly take anything they wanted before starting a fire.

will g said...

A good case can be argued that the purpose of the visit to Luzerne County was for the records to be destroyed with the belief that this would put Bryan out of business and let Sean and Grant swap films with Joe and Harlow. What better way to destroy the records than to burn down Bryan's house where they were stored. And then things got out of hand and Bryan was sliced and diced.

Please explain how they planned to burn the house down without things getting "out of hand" and Bryan being killed? So he might have been burned alive instead of decapitated?

will g said...

Of course Albert, everyone including me thinks Harlow probably let Joe in after he killed Bryan, despite my arguing that Joe could have stayed in the motel. That's not what I was referring to, but perhaps A-1 misunderstood my comment.

Anonymous said...

"$5,000 and small claims"

imagine how much money DeTwitt could have made off the bryan kocis scandal if he had been smart enough to have had affiliate links from the beginning; lot more than $5,000 for show

will g said...

Huh?

Albert said...

Must be referring to Peter's suit against Magnum but even at that, I agree Will. Huh?

Anonymous said...

Will:

Your right, I did argue that Joe had been let in by Harlow. However, I believe I said that Joe was searching for evidence that could be used again Bryan to pursuade (sic) him to either drop the law suit against Sean, Grant & Lee or to pressure Bryan to allow Sean to make a film with Harlow. Almost the same as looking for the 2257s but not quite the same.

As far as burning down the house with Bryan in it, it would have been another crackpot idea because it could also have killed Harlow if he was still sleeping with Bryan when it occured. Still even with the fire being started, (assuming that this was the plan), Bryan still had a better chance of surviving than when his neck was sliced.

Frankly though, when I saw that Joe had purchased the lighter fluid, I concluded that Joe was planning Bryan's murder. {The purchase of the condoms at the same time still don't make sense. Perhaps they were on sale, and Joe could not pass up a good deal.}

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Will:

Glad to see that you have joined the rest of us in concluding that Joe was in the Car and not in the Hotel when the murder took place.

Next step is to downplay the plea bargaining statement that Joe made. You can not trust anything that he says as being true (unfortunately) without an unbiased third party backing him up.

Anonymous One

Albert said...

Will, or anybody that wants to handle that hypothesis, go for it. The state of public education has gone beyond my comprehension to correct without some small thermonuclear devices. I might ask Honey Badger II what chapter he is on but I think the conversation would be beyond my feeble abilities.

will g said...

Frankly though, when I saw that Joe had purchased the lighter fluid, I concluded that Joe was planning Bryan's murder.

Your bias is showing:

A) There is NO evidence that Joe purchased it alone. All we know is that Harlow's credit card was used. In all likelihood they purchased it together, as the prosecution argued.

B) If Joe made the purchase alone, then you say it's evidence of premeditated murder. But when Harlow is tied to the purchase, you say it was to only to fill their lighter to smoke those mythical cigars!

will g said...

Update 39:

This makes me wonder. Were Harlow's lawyers really the driving force behind the decision, as they claimed after the trial?


If they were, they should be disbarred. There is just no way in Hell those lawyers didn't know Harlow was guilty. How is not malpractice to advise a guilty client to take the stand? Even lawyers who think their client is innocent don't advise it. Honestly if they did do that, as they claimed post-trial, Fannick just might have a case for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel. It was a huge mistake for them to claim responsibility in that interview.

will g said...

*How is it not malpractice...

DeWayne In San Diego said...

I concur Will I thought the same. Well my first thought at the time was I would wish these two sad sack excuses for lawyers on my worst enemy.

Or you know who If we ever got him in courtroom LMAO!

will g said...

I wonder if the lawyers' interview might have been just a ploy to get Harlow a new trial? You can bet it will be brought up by Fannick at the PCRA hearing, even though I don't think he mentioned it in the petition. Their rationale -- that they thought Harlow had to explain why he was at the murder scene -- doesn't even make any sense. There WAS no hard evidence he was there, until he put himself there on the stand.

So now Fannick can claim Harlow didn't want to testify, but his lawyers convinced him he had to. The juror interviews saying it was his testimony that doomed him certainly give this issue more traction. I think the lawyers might have thought they were being very crafty by claiming responsibility.

Not that I think such an argument will be successful. The petition will be denied. Ultimately Harlow would be arguing that his lawyers should have stopped him from lying on the stand. That's not going to fly.

jim said...

Yeah that's possible.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

successful appeals in murder cases are so rare as to be nearly akin to winning the Powerball.

Usually to succeed the errors or "legal malpractice" must rise to an odious level, it helps if the defendant is perceived by the reviewing panel to have some doubt as to guilt.

Unless Harlow can prove his lawyers were ASLEEP during his trial he might have a chance..

except in Texas where the death penalty was upheld for a Black Convict despite his lawyer spending most of his time in Dreamland.

Reminds me I do wish Bryan Kocis had resided in Texas this blog would have a very different flavor and discussion.

And more than likely Harlow would already be dead and buried in Huntsville..

Joe of course having made his deal would not be facing death.

jim said...

And mulling on it a bit more...were not D'Andrea and Walker closely associated with Fannick? They may not have been part of the same firm, but it stands to reason they were probably good friends, and collaborated unofficially in some ways.

Were D'Andrea and Walker personally recommended by Fannick, after his disqualification?

There were hints back then, if I recall correctly, that Fannick was still active with the defense in the background, with D'Andrea and Walker merely acting as fronts.

If this was the case, then yeah, Fannick could have ordered the attorneys to take the blame for Harlow's decision in a post trial interview, setting up a possible ground for appeal.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Yes Jim there were strong hints Fannick was involved behind the scenes.

Still asking two lawyers to put their law license in jeopardy might not be received well unless they were truly idiots or Fannick had some leverage on them.

In Luzerne County that cannot be discounted.

I remember telling Peter this I was shocked Luzerne County was able to handle this Capital case with the real turmoil going on around that courthouse.

I know in San Diego County cases are regularly handed off to a State Prosecutor from the State Attorney General's office if there is even a wiff or impropriety among the actors.

Including replacing lawyers!

Right now the former Mayor Dirty Filner is being investigated by the State Attorney not the local DA since she was a mayoral opponent in the last election.

Anonymous said...

Will at October 8, 6:02 AM.

As far as D'Andrea and company commiting Malpractice. It was more than just putting Harlow on the stand. I mentioned not knowing what Joe would or would not testifying to as a prime example.

But putting a client on the stand is not a function of "KNOWING" whether a client is guilty or not. The object of the defense counsel is protect the client, even to fight for his/her innocence when the attorney knows the client is guilty or not.

You can also ask whether or not the attorneys ever asked Harlow to tell them truthfully exactly what happened and to keep after him until they were satisfied they knew the truth. There are many defense attorneys who refuse to ask their clients because they do not want to be disabused.

Of course it has mentioned on this very blog that these two were in it solely to collect Mitch Halford's money. The moment the trial was over, they were out of there. So when you talk about D'Andrea and company committing malpractice, I am not going to dispute that with you.

What I would dispute is your categorization that since Joe purchased the lighter fluid, Harlow "HAD TO KNOW" that Joe was planning to burn down Bryan's home.
Saying that it was Harlow's credit card being use is not very pursuasive when we know that Joe carried them all the time. Most likely Joe also signed for items on the card (since he set them up, he probably was an authorized signatory). We do not even know if Harlow was at the Walmart at the time. I believe that while Joe was shopping, Harlow could easily wandered off to either the automotive department or camping goods where Joe picked him up afterwards. Since even Harlow is presumed innocent of a fact until proven guilty, absence of proof that Harlow knew about the purchase of the lighter fluid or its intent should at least be tolerated if not presumed.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

If you looked at the credentials of D'Andrea and his associate before Harlow's trial, you will note that they were former prosecutors. As Defense counsel they had represented each represented a single defendant in a capital case and each time they lost. Fannick on the other hand had a least one successful defense.

Former Prosecutors means that they had held "political" appointments and were probably let go when their sponsors were superceded or because they were lousy prosecutors.

Dewayne is right about the difficulty in winning a new trial based on lawyer incompetence. It will take fresh evidence, not raised at trial, and not from Harlow, to get the judge to even look at claims of judicial error or legal malpractice.

Anonymous One

will g said...

What I would dispute is your categorization that since Joe purchased the lighter fluid, Harlow "HAD TO KNOW" that Joe was planning to burn down Bryan's home.

That's not what I said and you've totally missed my point. You said "when I saw that Joe had purchased the lighter fluid," as if there's some evidence that links Joe, and Joe alone, to the purchase. For all we know it was Harlow alone who purchased it. Then when you've satisfied yourself that it was only Joe, suddenly it becomes in your mind this highly incriminating evidence of premeditated murder/arson, while previously you searched for an innocent explanation for the lighter fluid (cigars!) when we were assuming both of them made the purchase.

All of that shows an inherent bias IMO. You're allowed to be biased towards Harlow, I'm just pointing it out.

will g said...

But putting a client on the stand is not a function of "KNOWING" whether a client is guilty or not.

I said that no competent lawyer advises a client to take the stand, innocent or guilty. Yes it's the lawyer's job to protect the client, that's why they never do that. That's why I'm now calling BS on their claim that they told him it would be a good idea.

jim said...

Actually, we are not saying the attorneys were guilty of malpractice. We are saying HARLOW is guilty of making the terrible decision to take the stand (for ego related reasons), as originally reported during the trial.

After the trial, the attorneys then falsely accused themselves of making the bad decision, perhaps to create the illusion of grounds for appeal.

Convoluted I'll admit. But no stranger than any of the many other oddities this case has seen.

Anonymous said...

I was shocked Luzerne County was able to handle this Capital case with the real turmoil going on around that courthouse DeWhinny

funny how DeWhinny always ends up saying shit that is completely at odds with PC's pro Luzerne County delusions. didn't someone actually contact the US Attorney prior to Cuadra's trial about The Luzerne County DA's "conflict" in prosecuting people for the murder of the local pornographer who the DA Office enabled (by not prosecuting him for producing porn and for prostitution)?

when a locality doesn't prosecute someone for producing porn when producing porn is illegal, it can be rightfully charged (by the feds or via private civil RICO) with being a party to that enterprise.

eye opening, i know

will g said...

Oh yes, my eyes have been opened!

So let me get this straight: If Michael Lucas was murdered, the Manhattan District Attorney would be disqualified from prosecuting the case because he didn't prosecute Lucas for "illegally" producing porn in Manhattan. Got it.

jim said...

Yeah, you still haven't answered yet why Michael Lucas hasn't been arrested yet for making porn in New York. I'm really interested in hearing the answer to that.

Anonymous said...

when you assumptions don't reconcile, maybe it's time to reevaluation your assumptions

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Or better yet Pornographer Richard Maturo in Pennsylvania guess porn production in PA is not the legal equivalent of selling Cocaine out of your house afterall.

Unless PA has declared a moratorium on drug dealers we are not aware of.

Anonymous said...

something "prompted" miami to act against a gay dorm producer. there was also a high profile prosecution of a porn producer in PA actively going on at the time kocis was attracting a lot of attention to himself as I recall. again, someone adversely affected by Kocis / Cobra could have brought a civil rico.

Anonymous said...

suing someone in federal court gives that person the power to subpoena shit from you and to depose you. S & G could have ripped kocis a new asshole in federal court but, they didn't did they, which makes all this DeWhinning about the feds not acting so much bs

Albert said...

I do not approve of Will's naming of anonymous nobody's. No big problem with it. It's his thing. He see's things I do not. This time I see a bit of Russian illiteracy. "when you assumptions don't reconcile, maybe it's time to reevaluation your assumptions" This grammar strikes me as a distinctive Russian slant on the English language.

Albert said...

No anon at 3:34, it does not. Failure to sue is proof of nothing. It may be an indication of limited funding or disinterest.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 217   Newer› Newest»