Friday, October 18, 2013

Victory Day 2013, Part Six


Update 46: And finally, the where-are-they-now section for Harlow.

First of all, I don't begrudge him all his appeals. Getting to file fruitless appeals for the rest of his life was one of the advantages he bargained for when he refused to take the plea deal and allocute as Joe did, risking a death sentence in the process. So, might as well take advantage of that perk, since he did indeed earn it.

Although, it's funny when you think about it: Joe opted for the safe, secure, meek and humble path of the offered life sentence plea deal, while Harlow opted to put his life at peril by taking the aggressive, highly risky and hubristic path of going to trial. In other words, exactly the opposite personality traits supporters of Harlow would have us believe the two possessed.

Second, I gather that Harlow was politely asked by PC and Stoner to contribute to the book, and unlike Joe, refused? Or refused to respond? So, all we have to go on I guess are these prison letters to "Natasha."

What's interesting to about these letters is not so much what was said, but what was UNsaid. Just a bit of background: I think I've mentioned this before, but I've had a friend in prison before, who communicated with me a fair amount while behind bars. 

The letters from this friend of mine was VERY similar to the Harlow-Natasha letters, in that both constantly went on and on about the false hopes of appealing conviction. "[A]ccording to the legally inclined, the odds (of winning the appeal) are in our favor" is a virtually identical paraphrase of what my friend would write to me, over and over and over again. The similarity in both content and tone is uncanny.

But you know what was unsimilar between the two? Money. The letters from my friend, after going on about this or that pending aspect of the appeal procedure, would INVARIABLY wrap up with a plea for money. He'd need the money to pay an attorney to file this, or for more canteen funds, or to try to sell some items from his storage unit for needed cash, etc. And I've talked to others in the same boat as me, who have gotten prison letters from different inmates...they ALWAYS ask for money.

By contrast, the Natasha letters seem to contain no requests for money. In my experience, this is HIGHLY unusual. Did Natasha not publish parts of Harlow's letters asking for money? That seems unlikely; if anything she'd want to broadcast his plea and start up a Kickstarter.

Or perhaps Harlow never asked for money because he's got all the funding, legal, canteen, the works, that he ever could possibly need. This despite coming from a family of humble means.

And THIS gets back to a question we covered earlier...see past discussions of who's paying for Fannick, Mitch Hal(lford) the go-between, and the "mystery Senator." 

Mark my words folks, this is the last bombshell revelation in this saga, which has yet to be detonated yet. And when it goes off (I'm fairly sure it eventually will) it will be BIG.


Update 45: As for the investigators: "Higgins and Jolley said the investigation was "a huge effort."..." That, and the fact that they felt the need to consult with the county supervisors over the cost of this is very interesting. It goes back to my earlier point about the severe budget constraints Luzerne County was under. If Harlow and/or Joe had only taken advantage of that and pled early, I am certain a MUCH better deal could have been obtained.


Update 44: As to the section about the Kocis family moving on, the part I take issue with the most is the opinion of Bryan's sister on how blame for all this should be apportioned.

When you consider that Bryan knew, FOR A FACT, at the conclusion of the filming of Schoolboy Crush that Brent was only 17 (Bryan was tipped off Brent was underage, Bryan tested that suspicion by having a surprise ID check at the end of filming, and Brent decisively failed that test), and that he went ahead and edited, completed and sent off to his distributor what he knew FOR A FACT to be child pornography, you reach many conclusions. That "the victim was Bryan the whole time" is not one of those conclusions.

Bryan was every bit as culpable for the knowing production and distribution of kiddie porn as Chris Henriquez and Brent were, and unlike Brent he was never actively deceived as to the severity of the consequences of his actions.

As to the "rebranding" of Cobra Video with EuroMedia, has anything significant become of that deal since the book was published?


Update 43: As far as the rest of the where-are-they-now section for Brent goes, Albert comment below indicates that since the books publication, his planned move from the porn world to the non-porn world has come along even further:

"Sean is doing well. Missing some hair over his left ear from his recent fall. In addition to 'Truth' and 'Triple Crossed,' he has four more movies that will be released in the next year. He said that they treat him well but in the end it is not enough to pay the bills. Fleshjack has been a big help. He gets a little from the sales of each of his molded toys. With the two canadians out of the picture, I am pretty sure he remains their top seller. He is also a big draw at the nightclub circuit. I have also heard a rumor that Fleshjack may use him as their spokes model at the annual marketing conventions."

So, other than Fleshjack and the occasional nightclub appearances (as a dancer?) his porn career is done and over. People tried to force him out of the gay porn industry, but he persevered and eventually left by his own free will and under his own terms.

I will note at this point the failure of one of my past predictions. I predicted many times that we'd see a "Schoolboy Crush" reunion porn of sorts with Brent Everett. But obviously that's not going to happen now.

I must say I am quite surprised my prediction did not come to pass. Can you imagine the hype that would have preceded such a release? This video would have made a buttload of money. It is amazing to me that the vast financial incentives here could not overcome whatever hurdles needed to be hurdled to make this happen.


Update 42: Lockhart gets to make his denial.

If you just read the book only, this little section doesn't make too much sense. The book as we've already noted only mentions the intense suspicion he was under and accusations against him on the blogs in passing. So I imagine a non-Kocispherian would be a bit bewildered at reading this.

However, for those of us who were there, in the trenches, and saw first hand the daily relentless anonymous comments, pitching conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, constantly trying to paint he and Grant as murderers, despite the growing overwhelming evidence Harlow and Joe committed this murder by themselves, this section makes perfect sense.

And he's right too, about none of them ever admitting they were wrong, and apologizing. Even after Joe pled guilty. They just silently slunk away.


Update 41: "Reporter Sue Henry from WILK Radio...noted that Cuadra took the stand against the advice of his attorneys..."

There's that discrepancy is again. It's clear that one official party line story went out before Harlow testified, and another contradicting it went out after. One wonders why?

Update 40: On to the end chapter and the interview with Joe. A few thoughts:

1) The impression I get here, what with his days at the prison gym, thoughtfully styled receding hairline, three full meals a day, family visits, taking his meds, following the rules, getting along smashingly with his cellmates...is that prison life is agreeing with Joe. "His biggest worry now, he says, is trying to overcome persistent insomnia."

It makes me think this was a big factor in Joe finally deciding to plea out. I think he came to the conclusion, in the months waiting for trial, "eh, general population prison life ain't too bad" and decided to forgo the impossible chance of an acquittal along with the real risk of ending up in the far less comfortable living conditions of death row.

2) His story about prosecutors hintingly threatening to charge his parents...I actually would not be too surprised if this turned out to be true. And if that was a factor in Joe's decision-making, well so be it. One could argue there was a bit of aiding and abetting on their part, after the fact, so the threat does seem legit.

3) Now here's the thing I wish AES had asked Joe about: Why did Joe not try to plea as soon as he was arrested?

We know from the end of Chapter 12 that this case cost Luzerne County a TON of money. $112,000 for the prosecution, plus $25,000 for the public defenders. That was the ONE AND ONLY bargaining chip Harlow and Joe had with prosecutors after they were arrested...it was KNOWN that it was going to be expensive. They could have used that fact as leverage in plea negotiations to get some deal south of life in prison, HOWEVER, for every day they delayed, for every dollar towards that $137,000 the county spent, their ONE AND ONLY bargaining chip got pissed away.

We know Joe was talking to his jail cellmates early on about a plea deal. So why didn't he try for one, when his chances were at their highest?

Now, I will mention here what was going on about the Kocisphere, just after the arrest. Almost immediately the faction that was accusing Brent and Grant of murder began floating the idea of a conspiracy against Harlow and Joe, and that they hoped Harlow and Joe would fight, be found innocent, so that the "real killers" could be brought to justice. And indeed, after both Harlow and Joe made public declarations of total innocence, their excitement and glee could barely be contained. And the conspiracy theories ran wild.

What I WISH had been asked of Joe, in these book interviews, is this: "What role did outside encouragement play on the decision to refuse to plea initially? Did the public writings of people like Jason Ridge and John Roecker and perhaps others who write in multicolored paragraphs convince you and Harlow to essentially ruin your chances for a less-than-life sentence? Or did they go further, contact you guys directly, thus directly giving you the false hope which ruined both your lives?"

This is to me one of the greatest remaining mysteries about this case, for which my curiosity burns with a fervid intensity. Had these questions been asked, I think there is a good chance Joe would have found the desire to answer truthfully and thoughtfully.


212 comments:

1 – 200 of 212   Newer›   Newest»
will g said...

Eh, is that really a "ton" of money? I remember thinking it was a relative pittance when that figure got quoted after the trial. And a good chunk of that money had already been spent by the time they were arrested. So I'm not sure I agree that it was such a great bargaining chip that got dissipated over time. Of course one of the reasons plea bargains exist at all is to save on trial costs. But that savings happens whether the defendant pleads early or late.

A-1 mentioned in the previous thread that you also thought Harlow could have gotten a much lighter sentence if he plea bargained early, and I said there I didn't really buy that either. Whenever the death penalty is on the table, all of the leverage is on the prosecution's side, not the defendant's, and I think in a great majority of cases the plea is made simply to avoid it and results in a sentence of life w/o parole.

Albert said...

On the other hand, if Luzerne County wanted to save money, it would seem they would take the initiative to offer a plea deal.

I wonder at what point Joe learned of the Black's Beach and Crab Catcher recordings. I would think that would be the second moment he knew he was screwed. The first time being when he was arrested of course. I expect they lived in anxious denial before the arrest.

jim said...

Yeah, I wish there were more questions asked to both Melnick* and Joe regarding plea negotiations. It's 4 years later, and we are still in the dark as to who proposed what to whom, and when.

And yeah, as the overwhelming evidence began to roll in, discussions of plea bargaining MUST have come up with their public defenders at the time. One wonders what they must have been REALLY thinking (as opposed to the official talking point of no-plea-deal-ever).

*Or is there some sort of ethics rule that prevents Melnick from discussing plea negotiations, even post trial?

jim said...

By the way, something I missed at the end of Chapter 12, concerning a detail we were having trouble sourcing earlier:

"Melnick...said his interactions with Kerekes had convinced him that "the last thing I wanted was Kerekes as a witness on my side.""

That is footnoted 69, sourcing to a Citizens' Voice article.

So, the reason Joe didn't testify for the prosecution was because Melnick rejected him, and not because Joe somehow refused in any way.

jim said...

"...and we are still in the dark as to who proposed what to whom, and when."

I'm going to modify my statement somewhat. We do know, of course, of the take-it-or-leave-it life sentence w/o parole offers the prosecution offered to both Joe and Harlow, VERY late in the game, which Joe accepted and Harlow rejected.

I just wonder if there were more plea maneuverings other that that. I have to think that there was.

will g said...

Oh so you found the Mysterious Missing Melnick Quote. Not that I ever thought you were making it up, it did sound familiar to me.

I still tend to doubt plea bargains with substantially lighter sentences were offered to either of them early on. Perhaps life sentences with the possibility of parole, but nothing less than that.

And what I said about $112K being relatively cheap for this kind of prosecution? Here's a 2002 article that says:

Just prosecuting a capital crime can cost an average of $200,000 to $300,000, according to a conservative estimate by the Texas Office of Court Administration.

jim said...

That Texas figure might include all the appeals upon a successful death verdict.

And life with parole, that IMO would be a HUGE improvement. Had I been their PD after the arrest I would have vigorously urged them to take that deal, before it was too late.

Let's say it took Harlow 40 years to get paroled? He'd be out just in time to collect Social Security.

Albert said...

Will only refers to the cost of prosecution. Anecdotal example; I had a cousin on Texas death row for 20 years before he got the needle. His appeals cost the state over 2 million. There was never any question of his quilt.

will g said...

Jim the article is pretty clear that those figures are just for prosecuting the trial, not including appeals. It says:

Add indigent-defense lawyers, an almost-automatic appeal and a trial transcript, and death-penalty cases can easily cost many times that amount.

will g said...

Update 41:

Well reading that in context, which is the authors summarizing retrospective reports made after the trial, Ms. Henry must have made that observation after Harlow's lawyers had already claimed they advised him to take the stand, so unless she had a private conference with them where they contradicted themselves, her statement has no validity. Of course we all believe what she said to be true, and that the lawyers were obfuscating, but that doesn't give her license to state it as fact.

She also says that Harlow "lit up the courtroom" with his scintillating performance on the stand, so there seems to be something a bit off about her.

Anonymous said...

Update # 40:

You are all right when you state that $112K being a small amount for a trial. Remember that it includes the cost of the investigation, the sound system at Black Beach, not to mention flying all those people out there. Other comments about the prosecution producing documents right up to the date of trial. The cost of the actual trial (Prosecutors, Judge, Jury, Baliffs etc) was relatively small.

I would also agree that the cost of the trial was of limited leverage to the Defendants. Most of the money had already been spent prior to their arrests, and no serious plea bargaining could take place until after the prelinary arraignment when the defense counsel could the see the amount of prosecutorial evidence.

So no argument there from me.


Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

As to update # 41:

The reason why there are two stories about Harlow taking the stand is called CYA (Cover your anatomy). Had Harlow proved to be a star witness, the defense counsels would talked about how brave they were to put him on the stand. After Harlow's performance, it was all Harlow's idea to testify. You may note how eager D'Andrea and company were to take up the appeal.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Jim:

I still do not see where you get the idea that Joe is getting along swimingly in prison. With his ego, radical shifts in personality, and need for instant satisfaction, I am surprised that he has not had his sentence cut short by a fellow inmate.

Of course Joe appears mean and formidable so if he was put in a prison (as a result of his plea bargain) where the other inmates were less hard core, he might survive.

Harlow on the other hand (he stated that his time in the Navy was easier for him because he could accept the discipline more than the other recruits) probably will last a much longer despite being in a worse prison.

It would interesting to see what their prison records are like. Is either a disciplinary problem, does Harlow still cry at night etc.

But in the end neither one wants to be in prison. And I can safely assume that none of us contributors to this blog would want to be in jail either.

Anonymous One

will g said...

A-1 welcome back. Your comment about Update 41 is a bit confused. "After Harlow's performance, it was all Harlow's idea to testify" isn't what happened. In a press conference after the trial, the lawyers claimed they had to put Harlow on the stand to explain why he was inside the house during the murder. You would EXPECT them to cover their asses and say it was all his idea, but they actually did the opposite and took the blame/credit for putting him on the stand.

will g said...

Jim gets the idea about Joe thriving in prison from the book. Stoner all but says it himself after observing him there.

jim said...

"Most of the money had already been spent prior to their arrests"

No, I think the real money referred to here came from the managing of scores of prosecution witnesses, flying them and them in and out of Luzerne County, hotelling them, the time spent by the DA on trial and hearing prep, etc.

More from the reporters reminisces:

"The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania versus Harlow Raymond Cuadra had become "so big lawyers almost literally trip over it as they present their arguments. Cardboard boxes stacked under tables bulge with documents. Ring binders nearly a half-foot thick sprawl on the foot of desks," Guydish added. (16)"

jim said...

"You would EXPECT them to cover their asses and say it was all his idea, but they actually did the opposite and took the blame/credit for putting him on the stand."

Yep exactly, which is what makes this so odd IMO.

Anonymous said...

Read between the lines. Say one thing and imply the other. It happens in Politics, and it happens in the Court Room. What these attorneys did not want to admit was how unprepared they were for the trial and how they had not vetted Joe before hand, and how they had not properly handled Harlow.

A proper defense would have had the two trial defense attorneys conduct a mock testimony before hand. One would have asked questions of Harlow, and the other would then have cross examined him to see what weaknesses would arise. After that they would have properly determined whether they should put Harlow on the stand.

This did require first that they sit Harlow down and get his full story, and that they review all of the evidence the prosecution had presented. It also would have helped to read the entire 201 file of Harlow's military record before entering it into evidence.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

One of the tricks of the legal trade is keep duplicating the same evidence over and over and supply it to the other side so the other side gets burried in it. However it does not cross much to run the zerox machine.

I would agree that bringing in the witnesess for trial did cost money. However the cost of flying the whole crew out to California to set up the Black Beach Tapes had to be expensive. Then there were the interviews by the Police of witnesses who were never called to testify. All of this was done before Harlow and Joe left the Virginia jail for Pennsylvania. The extradiction hearing was also a cost that Luzerne County had to pick up (again before they left Virginia) So if you take just the cost of the three week trial, you may find it to be 20-30 thousand of the 112 thousand cited as the total cost. $20-30 thousand is still a lot of money.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Jim those cardboard boxes they were tripping over contained material that was gathered during the investigation, which of course does cost money. A-1 may be wrong that "most" of the $112K was spent prior to their arrest, but as I said earlier I think "a good chunk" of it had been spent by then.

jim said...

Since it says the $112,000 was "to prosecute" I don't believe there were any pre-arrest charges involved in coming up with that figure. You can't start to prosecute someone without arresting them first.

Investigative charges pre-arrest come to a separate amount, I believe.

will g said...

You may be right Jim. I was thinking the cost of the prosecution would include everything spent to obtain convictions, but maybe not. Anyway, it was still a relatively cheap prosecution, not enough of a bite out of Luzerne County's budget to give H&J leverage in plea negotiations, IMO. Lighter sentences than life for either of them would have been a scandal, especially if it was done to save a little money.

Anonymous said...

Lets assume that your correct about the investigative expenses not being included: This would leave the following expenses that could be charged to prosecuting the case:
1) Judge Olszewski- 3 weeks trial but also all of the pretrial hearings.
2) Melnick and the Prosecutional Team. At least two other trial lawyers plus assistants and clerical staff (again pretrial hearings were a large part of their job).
3) Sheriffs and Stenographers (again used both during the trial and before).
4) Judge Conahan and Judge Civialetti (they sign the extradictration papers and appointed Harlow's public defenders): Only kidding the amount of money to be assigned to them was extremely limited.
5) Cost of the extradition hearing in Virginia. I assume that somebody from Luzerne County had to be in Virigina Beach. Perhaps they supplied the counsel for the hearing, perhaps not.
6) Cost of providing transportation for Harlow and Joe from Virginia to Pennsylvania. Not only the driver(s)but their guards as well. I do not believe the cost of pretrial incarceration would be included, but the cost of bringing them to the various hearings and the trial would be.
7) At the preliminary hearing, Sean and Grant were required to be flown over to Pennsylvania and flown back. One assumes they also were housed in a hotel while in Pennsylvania.
8) While not as expensive other witnesses had to attend the prelimnary hearing.
9) For the actual trial plane tickets were needed for Sean, Grant and Bryan's California Attorney. Renee was also flown in. A number of witnesses from Virginia attended. One assumes that a portion to all of their travel expenses were incurred.
If Justin Hensley was flown in from Iraq, that could have been a major expense.
10)The Jury was enpaneled and was paid a daily fee (often miniscule) but they also had to be fed lunch which might have been more and maybe a supper or two. If sequestered, hotel rooms would be needed.
11) Exhibits needed to be prepared.
12) Discovery took place. Originals went to the court but copies to the Judge, associate prosecutors and at least one copy to the defense for each item disclosed. If depositions took place a stenographer would have be paid not only the hearing but to type up what said afterwards.
13) The cost of heating and lighting the courtroom would not be charged since there were multiple trials occuring simultaneously, and the building had to be cleaned, lit and heated whether there was a trial or not.

I think I have listed all of the expenses that would be purely prosecutorial. Now all you have to do is plug in the figures.

Anonymous One


Albert said...

A good list anon. I am sure some other things could be included but you seem to have hit the major ones. Manpower is always the biggest expense, i.e. attorneys billable hours etc.

One exception I believe (unless rules have changed for the DOD.) The cost of bringing an active duty military to a trial in the U.S. would start at the port of entry. Not the point of departure.

Still there seems to be enough in your list to justify the paltry sum paid for prosecution.

Another note. The cost of using Federal key fobs, reception equipment and manpower would not have been billed to any local government. ref: Blacks Beach/Crab Catcher.

Anonymous said...

Albert:

The cost of flying in Hensley, since that is usually on a military aircraft would make sense that it is non-billable to the state.

However the action at Black Beach is more interesting and so far not picked up in our analysis. Lets say that the Feds did not want to be reimbursed by Luzerne County for their participation. This would imply that they had a direct interest in this investigation. I would suggest the following possibilities:
1) The Navy was upset because our boys were posing as on duty personnel and MORE IMPORTANTLY recruiting some sailors to work in the boydello (and not as cleaning staff). Possibly one of them was a family member of a high ranking navy personnel.
2) Virginia Beach was involved because I think Joe irritated the heck out of the police force on more than one occaison and they wanted to get him bad.

I have always thought that the original charges were written up by US Department of Justice. The giveaway is the charge of using an electronic instrument to commit a crime. Originally the DOJ was going to prosecute since we have a multistate situation, the crimes were alledgely planned in Virginia, the alleged conspirators resided in Virginia, the deceased lived in Pennsylvania, and most of the crimes took place in Pennsylvania. The Cameras that had their serial numbers tampered with, were probably tampered with in Virginia or possibly along the route from Pennsylvania to Virginia. Had the Feds conducted the trial, there would have been additional charges such as subornation of perjury, and no need for extradiction. However the US Attorneys have very small staffs so they prefer to let the State (County in this case) do the prosecution, and they turned over the proposed charge sheets and evidence to the Luzerne County and washed their hands of it.

Anonymous One

Albert said...

Should the city of New Orleans or the State of Louisiana be billed for all money it accepted from the Federal government after Katrina? I would say yes but that is not how our laws are currently structured. It is not a matter of what the Feds 'wanted.'

Jurisdiction at that time was still unclear so all possible entities worked together. After that point was clarified, the rest stepped back and watched at a distance. The Federal and local participants in SoCal became what they had always been, observers.

I am Air Force but cannot imagine the Navy as being "upset."

Multi-State crimes may result in multi-State trials. I cannot imagine why the Department of Justice would have concern about local murders. If they did Chicago alone would eat up their budget.

In short, I do not know what you are basing your ideas on.

Anonymous said...

What I am basing my ideas on is that the Feds got involved in the first place, specifically the Navy CID.

As you are aware if the Navy wishes to prosecute non-Navy personel they have to use the US Dept. of Justice.

You are right the DOJ is very reluctant to prosecute unless a civil rights case or a matter of great national importance.

Yet we have the Federal Government directly involved in San Diego. Even if they did not prosecute, we have to ask why?

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

The why is why did they get involved at Black Beach? Sorry I was not clearer in the last post.

Anonymous One

Geoff Harvard said...

Kocis was implicated in a federal crime, and his killers may have been his confederates from the point of view of law enforcement at the moment. Kerekes and Cuadra were former members of the armed forces who employed current members of the armed forces in criminal acts, which interested NCIS, although NCIS would not normally take up a matter except at the request of a subject service member's commanding officer, and the results of the investigation would normally be referred back to that commanding officer. It's hard to say what the legal hook was for federal and military law enforcement to keep going and then share the results with local authorities.

Anonymous said...

Do you remember the incident that was related right after the arrests. The relater who I think was PC told about how he had ordered a massage from Joe. Joe laid out the creams, the relater paid Joe, the relater got undressed and Joe then packed the creams and took off telling the relater what a sap he was.

This incident has always shaped my view of Joe. He always liked to scam other people because the relater said that afterwards he found other persons who felt that way about Joe.

The relater also said that he found no bad opinions of Harlow who apparently did what he was paid for (and did it well!!).

Now what I believe is that Joe managed to offend someone highup in the Navy as well as the police in Virginia Beach. This is why the NCIS was investigating him (and consequently Harlow as his partner at the same time).

It would not surprise me if the Navy was after them strictly for use of Navy Personnel or abuse of Navy Personnel (if you prefer). The murder investigation by Luzerne County overlapped and both investigations decided to cooperate with each other.

We also have to remember that Hensley and Shunk were already forced to act as informers (probably preceding the murders).

So had the murder not taken place, I believe criminal suits would have been brought against Joe, Harlow (and probably Hensley and Shunk to make them testify) and both Joe and Harlow would have served some time, but would have probably been out by now. Bryan might also have gone down in the Luzerne County mess, or on separate child abuse charges and may have served time.

Wonder if Harlow wishes now that was the outcome?

Anonymous One

DeWayne In San Diego said...

I admit in 2007 I was impressed by the Federal involvement in the early investigation and then at Blacks Beach that Saturday. I recall discussing this with Albert several times.

The early June (2007) meeting with Grants lawyer was something of a reality check. A Federal defender he had a lot of experience with local Federal law enforcement.

He was not surprised at all by the FED involvement.

My understanding is the alphabet soup of local Federal agency's outnumbers the local SDPD and San Diego County Sheriff combined.

So much of San Diego includes areas of exclusive federal concern. you have 115,000 plus active duty military, 5 bases, the busiest International border in North America, the Drug and Customs and immigration agents.

The DEA has the best technical team for eavesdropping so SDPD who were assisting PA Police would have naturally turned to them as they do in countless cases.

All these agencies work together so often they will create special task forces.

As for the prosecution that will frequently go to local courts when warranted.

Once Bryan was murdered any idea of going after Joe And Harlow by NCIS (having active duty personnel in a escort ring) would have taken the back seat to Joe and Harlow facing much more serious LOCAL charges in PA.

Anonymous One you have a good summing up there at the end about possible outcomes if Bryan had not been killed.

will g said...

Happy Halloween! Only 12 days till Harlow's PCRA hearing!

Looks like you'll be around for that Jim, since you've cleverly timed the updates to end around then.

Geoff Harvard said...

Is anyone ready for the Sean Lockhart/Bryan Kocis saga to end at long last?

Anonymous said...

to paraphrase Mr. Lucas ... go ahead, you can write whatever you want now, you have no platform. who's gonna take a hack gay porn director seriously? who's gonna buy a book about bryan kocis - innocent victim. it was all for shit! it all falls under the category of "small claims"

jim said...

"The DEA has the best technical team for eavesdropping so SDPD who were assisting PA Police would have naturally turned to them as they do in countless cases."

Yeah that was always my understanding, that all these agencies were brought in for the BBTs for their various James Bond gadgets (ie, key fobs) and technical expertise.

I also recall my visit to that beach. The background sounds of wind and surf made for what had to be (IMO) a very challenging recording operation.

They had only one shot at this, they were wise to bring in the best they team and equipment they could lay their hands on.

Anonymous said...

who's gonna take a hack gay porn director seriously? you can only increase someone's credibility because your's is nonexistent. 5+ years of your life and lockhart still has no use for you.

will g said...

Your rantings and ravings are, as usual, incoherent Mr. Fondel.

jim said...

By the way, can anyone remember why this day is significant?

will g said...

Assuming you mean this date, and not today, my answer is no.

Anonymous said...

Jim:

I may not be a Brent Corrigan fan, but it is where I am still, Sean Lockhart's 27th Birthday.

Anybody going to disagree?

Anonymous One

will g said...

I think that's the right answer? At any rate, here's his Halloween costume.

Anonymous said...

when you are down so fucking low on credibility ladder that all you can hope for in life is to bring other people down to YOUR level, you gotta know you're fucked in the head. again, who the fuck is going to take you seriously? no one

jim said...

Yes it is Brent/Sean's date of birth, upon which the fate of the world once turned on.

Anonymous said...

yet another year in which he has no use for you

will g said...

Update 42:

And he's right too, about none of them ever admitting they were wrong, and apologizing. Even after Joe pled guilty. They just silently slunk away.

I seem to remember you saying that after Joe's plea, "they" were counting on Harlow to finally blow the case wide open and nail Sean and Grant from the witness stand, so apologies would hardly have been forthcoming after the plea. I would expect it was when not only didn't that happen, but he completely exonerated them on the stand, that most of them slunk away. Although as I recall BB -- and let's face it, that's mainly who we're talking about, at least on this blog, isn't it? -- didn't really slink away even after that, though of course he never apologized.

Coincidentally I was reading a recent Sword thread on Sean the other day where somebody chimed in to call him a murderer. So there are still some die-hards out there.

jim said...

Yeah they went on a bit longer after Joe's plea, but at that point most conspiracy theories became ridiculous, and Roecker's video was rendered an outright fraud. So that was the beginning of the end.

The true end came, interestingly, after Brent's testimony. There had been this pent up hope that a dramatic Perry Mason moment would occur, and under withering cross examination by the defense surprise evidence would show Brent was the murderer. Or Brent would just crack. Or both.

Of course none of that happened. The defense barely even questioned him.

I tried to tell people beforehand that because fingering Brent/Grant was bad defense strategy in that it would only lead the jury to conclude Harlow was a murderer by hire, and thus it wouldn't happen...but no one listened.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Jim,Will the significant anniversary is in February 2014 when it will be 10 years since Bryan Kocis made the fateful decision to fly a 17 year old Junior in High School to Florida to film Every Poolboys Dream.

Thus setting in motion what would ultimately begin the Cobra War over an underage model and Bryans eventual murder in January 2007.

One of those moments in time where a simple decision led to many wrecked lives.

Jim many thanks for the excellent review of Cobra Killer and keeping this blog up and alive for so many years. Much appreciated!

will g said...

Yes Jim, fingering Sean and Grant as the masterminds who "hired" them isn't a defense at all, so it just goes to show how desperate and out of touch with reality those like BB were. Obviously Harlow couldn't validate that conspiracy theory, because he would then be admitting to being part of the conspiracy.

And there I think we have the answer to why there are still some die-hards who believe Sean is a murderer. Because Harlow couldn't tell the "truth" about Sean and Grant's involvement without implicating himself. Unless he tried a different tack and claimed the other three conspired, and Joe carried it out, and he was left out of the loop and had no prior knowledge about what was going to go down. Maybe you should have tried that Harlow.

Anonymous said...

Will:

I think that was what Harlow was trying to do. After all Joe was a much more plausible culprit than Sean or Grant with the added bonus of being Pennsylvania at the time.

Anonymous One

Albert said...

I recall Sean's haters with a bit of gloomy nostalgia. So much venom spitting over a teenager. Remember Jason Secrest took the unusual step of opening opening his blog to uncensored comments that rolled in by the hundreds. Was it jealousy, revenge, anger or as Rush Limbaugh might call them, low information commentors? I am certain some former Cobra models were involved. Jason had opened up so investigators could more easily track sources. Over time, the alphabet soup (initials only) gang dwindled. I expect after they warranted an interview by some investigator.

Then a handfull of blogs took up the discussion. DeWayne had one for a time as did Elm, Jim, Peter and others. We had that supposed barrister friend of Bryan; one of the alphabet soup guys that DeWayne tracked and posted a picture of. He disappeared immediatly. And of course BB. She never offered much except repetitious phrases like, toxic twink or blood on their hands. She was as tenacious as she was tedious. In the end as always, more like that angry pet cat you just can't get rid of.

Having argued with Bryan on many occasions, I felt nothing at his loss. He was vile and frequently promoted the idea that underage models carried all the blame and responsibility for their actions. "It's all on them." Bryan Kocis. His last words to me a few days before his death were 'Close your sewer vents.' A few days after his death I responded. 'The sewer vent is closed permanently.' I don't think the owners of that thread knew what I meant at the time so let the comment stand.

Sean is doing well. Missing some hair over his left ear from his recent fall. In addition to 'Truth' and 'Triple Crossed,' he has four more movies that will be released in the next year. He said that they treat him well but in the end it is not enough to pay the bills. Fleshjack has been a big help. He gets a little from the sales of each of his molded toys. With the two canadians out of the picture, I am pretty sure he remains their top seller. He is also a big draw at the nightclub circuit. I have also heard a rumor that Fleshjack may use him as their spokes model at the annual marketing conventions.

Peter's book is excellent. It is the only book I currently 'like' on my facebook page. I would incorporate some of the suggestions Jim made to eliminate repetition and form a better timeline. I think it would sell better if the Brent Corrigan angle were exploited more. I mean a lot of exploitation. Explain why Sean was and is a big draw. How his underage movies topped the charts, the income Bryan got from those films and the impact of his blue star tattoo on Bryan and the future of those films. As well researched and well written as the book is, the emotions surrounding Brent Corrigan on all sides is the motivation for the law suit, the murder, online firestorm and two guys sitting in prison for life. These cannot be dealt with as just facts but need development. The reader should feel both the hate and support surrounding Brent Corrigan as well as the reality that is Sean Lockhart.

I know I am writing as a fan and friend of Sean but the Brent Corrigan name and image sells. He is a critical factor in why this story exists. Use that.

With DeWayne I also thank Jim for keeping this blog occasionally alive. Hope this is not our last reunion. Be well Geoff, Will, Jim, Peter, Grant and of course the Honey Badgers, whoever they are.

Anonymous said...

"the author" is suing his publisher in small claims court for $5,000 and the publisher of this blog is just another piece of useless garbage lockhart discarded.

Anonymous said...

no matter what the topic on this shit blog, the publisher always ends back at his primary mission i.e., to bring someone else down to HIS level

jim said...

There's something I always wondered about the "star" tattoo, maybe Albert or DeW can answer:

I know that he got it on his 18th birthday. It's practical effect was to indelibly tag those first four Cobra videos lacking the star as kiddie porn.

So, my question is, was visibly marking his underage/overage vids the primary reason for tattooing himself like that?

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Jim

Funny you mention that I asked him once and he said the initial thought was "rite of passage" I am 18 and Bryan had forbid tattoo's so that was the two motivating reasons for getting the star.

Remember in Oct 2004 Sean was still very much under Bryans control so this was a first act of rebellion nothing more.

Later on he realized the significance of getting that tattoo as a marker for his after 18 porn work.

I think Grant was the first one to realize the true significance of the Star.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Let me add my own observation if Bryan had not been such an Anal Type A control freak Sean more than likely would not have got the tattoo.

If you tell someone NO they are of course going to do the opposite.

Bryan was a controlling freak we know this because of the contract that was released with all the demands like producing gym records etc.

Something SO UNUSUAL in porn no one can recall another studio that ever made such demands.

Albert said...

"So, my question is, was visibly marking his underage/overage vids the primary reason for tattooing himself like that?"

Maybe not in the way a forty year old man intentionally sells stock in a company he knows will soon collapse.

But as DeWayne describes, an impoverished 17 year old gay boy in Southern California with hormones raging and no parental control might fuck his drunk but very hot cousin. The next day is not in our thoughts.

will g said...

Jim I think Mr. Fondel is really pissed at you for linking to that article revealing his identity. Shame on you. I can't think of any other reason for his vitriol, since you've barely acknowledged his presence otherwise.

Anonymous said...

this is your life. you life has come to this. there's not worst anyone can do to you

Anonymous said...

this is your life. you life has come to this. there's not worst anyone can do to you

Anonymous said...

this is your life. you life has come to this. there's not worst anyone can do to you

Anonymous said...

this is your life. you life has come to this. there's not worst anyone can do to you

Anonymous said...

this is your life. you life has come to this. there's not worst anyone can do to you

Anonymous said...

this is your life. you life has come to this. there's not worst anyone can do to you

Anonymous said...

this is your life. you life has come to this. there's not worst anyone can do to you

Albert said...

If you happen by New Braunfels, Texas this time of year, the former 'October Fest' is now Wurst fest. Don't know why that came to mind.

jim said...

I'm still waiting to hear why Michael Lucas hasn't been arrested yet.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Albert as long as that yummy sausage comes with plenty of beer I am good!

DeWayne In San Diego said...

come for the kartoffelpuffer, stay for the beer..guess that answers THAT question...

Jim Michael Lucas has connections to the Russian Mafia I am sure..

Didn't he play a Mafiaso in one of his films?

[jk Michael]

will g said...

this is your life. you life has come to this. there's not worst anyone can do to you

Albert said...

The proper use of incoherent illiteracy is an acquired art.

will g said...

Update 43:

Nothing much to say other than that I'm glad he seems to have made a full recovery, or close to it, from his head injury. The circumstances that led to him falling and hitting his head so severely remain cloaked in mystery.

will g said...

The Story that Never Ends... or... Will It?

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Thanks for the heads up Will checked it out

Anonymous said...

The key thing will be in the documents that Fannick files. If the matters are only statements by Harlow, it will be bad news for him.

If the documents contain fresh information from other witnessess then this is more than a trip from the big house for him.

By the way, even if he is as guilty as you guys think he is, it is still human nature to want to be free of the prison. I do not fault him for trying.

Hopefully the evidence presented will contain new information for us and bring us closer to the truth.

Anonymous One

will g said...

On Monday, Fannick said that because Cuadra is perhaps the only witness he will call to testify about the claims in his post-conviction request, he needs more time to prepare for the new issues that came up.

There is no fresh information from other witnesses.

Albert said...

Anon, I am totally with you on some points. If Harlow can get a new trial and get acquitted, he will have done what I would have done.

Yes, as you say, I believe he is guilty. Harlow had an appointment with Bryan, not Joe. I also believe Harlow is the more emotionally unstable. He was the whore. Joe was mostly an incompetent businessman.

New information would be interesting as the prosecutors only used what information they beloved was necessary. Lot's of "information" out there that is pointless. Not much of it is good for Harlow or Joe.

Still, I support Harlow's appeals. He and Joe were screwed over by the State No speedy trial and questionable representation. I do not want Harlow walking the streets but I more want good judicial action.

Anonymous said...

Will:

Your reference is to what Fannick said last May, not last Monday. He needed more time to follow through with what Harlow told him, so that should mean getting confirming evidence from other parties.

An example would be a pyschiatric evaluation by an expert witness. Not that would be sufficient for a new trial, but it might answer the question as to who was more unstable (like Albert says).

Anonymous One

will g said...

Yes I know it's from last May. The point is Fannick said his request for the delay didn't involve any new witnesses. I believe Harlow asked for the delay simply so he could get another field trip out of the prison, which after all will probably be the last one he'll ever have.

Anonymous said...

Will:

I would not assume that Fannick would not try for new witnesses. After all, supposedly Harlow told Fannick something that needed investigating otherwise the hearing would not have been postponed. Investigating means digging up evidence to support the additional allegations. It also supposes witnesses to present that information.

If Fannick had an expert witness of any kind, court rules would probably require him to inform the judge and the opposing counsel in advance. PC would have known about that, and since there is no word of same from him, I would not expect it.

However an ordinary witness (perhaps an ex-cellmate of Joe's)could have either direct testimony or an affivadit of what that person would testify to presented to the court at the hearing.

Anonymous One

Meanwhile Jim, maybe you could inform us as to what the rest of the principal cast is doing these days. Grant should be easiest, but is Robert Wagner still jumping from building to building?

will g said...

Oh Jesus, PC just said it's been delayed again.

will g said...

Last May the judge said "he would be reluctant to grant any more requests for continuances." So much for that.

will g said...

BTW for those keeping score, this is the fifth continuance.

will g said...

Harlow makes a Brief Appearance...

Apparently it's a relatively brief delay till "later this month."

will g said...

Actually Fannick did get one argument in yesterday:

Luzerne County Judge Fred A. Pierantoni III rejected a motion Tuesday that publicly funded attorneys were required to get a mental health evaluation of Cuadra.

Why should a completely innocent defendant's mental health even be an issue?

Next hearing is on November 27.

Anonymous said...

Will:

I would agree with you on this motion. The Judge made the right decision.

However, Fannick could still introduce a mental health evaluation at the hearing if he felt it would do any good. My guess it would not. I think Harlow is sane enough and intelligent enough to be responsible for his own actions.


What would be more interesting is a mental health evaluation of Joseph Kerekes.

Last assuming that the photograph on PC's blog is new, Harlow is still boyish looking. He has now been in prison for over six years. Somebody in that prison is protecting him from having his face slashed.

Anonymous One

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Looks like a new photo Will and he is in Prison blue denim unlikely if it was an old hallway pic from the trial with him in a suit. (which the Citizens Voice used)

will g said...

Yes the photo was taken on the 12th.

will g said...

Regarding this matter of the mental-health evaluation that Fannick argued should have been ordered by Harlow's lawyers, if that was the one issue he felt ready to argue, it does not bode well for the rest of the hearing. There are only two reasons a defendant's mental health needs to be assessed before trial: A) if there is a question about whether he's fit to stand trial, i.e. can assist in his defense and understand the charges against him, or B) if an insanity defense is being contemplated. Since neither of those applied with Harlow, it was a completely nonsensical motion. In fact, I think it actually did Harlow harm, since it signaled to the judge that Fannick believes Harlow is guilty.

will g said...

Sorry, in B) I should have said an insanity or diminished-capacity defense.

Anonymous said...

I agree. I suppose that Fannick wants to show that Harlow would be more susceptible to Joe's threats than a normal person, thus showing why Harlow did not want to inform on Joe until the very last moment. {Even when Joe is incarcerated and can not retaliate}. But there has to be a better defense than this if one is going to take this legal action.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

One think the Pro-Corrigan Camp has missed so far are the comments at the end of the Citizen's Voice Article.

There one Pat Wisenburg makes the comments that Lockhart and other porn stars who started at Cobra are now some of the wealthiest persons in that industry.

If Sean is one of the wealthiest, it does not bode well for the others.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Another one bites the dust.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Wealthiest oh my someone has not a clue! I do but cant say in a public forum.

As for his "legit" career that has defied the naysayers Seans latest is again getting good reviews on the acting.

Will there is one boy from Cobra the long haired beauty (Lance) that was in a couple of videos that Brent Corrigan appeared in. Last I heard he was a Barclays banker living in Thailand. Doing very well for himself but he went to Cornell and Porn was obviously a momentary flirtation by a rich kid. ;-)

Will your last comment check your email

will g said...

I think "wealthiest men in the business" means they became wealthy in porn, so I doubt the commenter had Lance in mind. Possibly Brent Everett? But yes, he must be smoking something if he thinks either of them is wealthy. Though I'm sure the other Brent has done quite nicely for himself with his website.

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

I agree with anon at 11:25. Excluding money outside of porn, both Brent Corrigan and Brent Everett would have to be among the wealthiest gay male adult actors in history. They are in fact both historical figures in this genre and to this day retain the best of respect this genre can afford an individual.

I have met and photographed both men many times each. They conduct themselves as professionals in public. In private, both are hard working, honest and usually very tired guys. I normally don't get to speak directly to them until after the evenings performance.. Usually 2-3 AM.

If they were rich, they would not be dancing in a shower on stage in Houston. Or maybe they would. Wealth has many meanings and both these men have earned a wealth of appreciation. They get it from people. Contact with those people is both a deposit and a withdrawal few in this arena will get to experience.

I have been privileged to observe it up front, standing next to Grant or standing next to Steve, We were watching the top of the class.

Just watching these guys is a privilege. At this time, their is none better.

will g said...

10 days since your last update Jim. Hope you aren't sick again.

jim said...

Naw just being quiet :-)

Geoff Harvard said...

After all these years it would be a shame to see the hobby die. Some people here were even following the saga before the Kocis murder.

Anonymous said...

Since we have an interlude here, lets back up to update 37 or so. One of the things that has been rummbling through my mind is the testimony by Harlow that Bryan's neck was sliced TWICE. As you recall the Coroner testified that Bryan's neck was severed with ONE single hard blow.

We can safely assume that Harlow was not paying attention to this detail when the Coroner was testifying. So why the discrepancy?

I would offer the following range of possibilities.

First, the Coroner was incorrect, a second slice was in the exact spot as the first and undectible.
In which case this portion of Harlow's testimony was true.

Second, what appeared to be second slice missed the skin and only the back and forth of the arm occured, so Harlow could have been under the impression that a second slice did occur. However if Harlow was doing the slicing, he would know (by the amount of friction) whether or not the second slice was cutting into the neck. In this case the implication would be that he was the observer.

The third situation is that Harlow did not witness the slicing. Either he had left the room(bathroom break?)or had his back to Bryan when the murder occured. I have always imagined that if he saw Joe sneaking up on Bryan, he would have said something, or his facial expression (if he was in cahoots with Joe) would have alerted Bryan.

The fourth possibility is that Harlow was trying to fake out the jury by telling a deliberate lie so that they would think he was not present at the murder. (You guys would probably choose this option, even though it is ridiculous in the extreme).

The fifth possibility was that Harlow does not remember the incident and has mentally blocked it out. He also day dreams during the testimony and neglects to listen to it. This would indicate that the murder was a great shock to him (either the actual deed if he help plan it, or if he was taken by surprise), and that he has an element of remorse in him.

So why was there this discrepancy?

Anonymous One

will g said...

I can't find any mention in the book, or in the updates here, about Harlow saying Joe slit Kocis' throat twice, though it sounds vaguely familiar to me. Perhaps you can point out where your source is for that.

Assuming that he did say that, it's no more of a puzzling discrepancy than him saying the table and wine glasses were knocked over, after the crime-scene photos had been displayed in court. In trying to make his made-up story sound convincing, he embellished it with details that contradicted the evidence.

Anonymous said...

Will:

I got that from this blog. I believe it was Jim's musings over Harlow's testimony and the jury's reaction to it.

As far the table and wine glass goes, the logic in lying about that would be to show that there was struggle and that Harlow tried to stop Joe from killing Bryan but was prevented from doing so. (logical as to why he would say so, not logical in terms of believabilty!!!).


In lying about the double slicing, this has no logic to it. If the jury believed him on the fact that Bryan's throat was cut twice rather than once, it really makes little difference in Harlow's culpability for the murder charge.

Anonymous One

PC said...

Hope you don't mind me posting this Jim:

Harlow's hearing will be Delayed Again...

will g said...

...due to having difficulties in contacting witnesses because of the holiday weekend.

Such BS. In May he said he needed the delay because Harlow was the only witness. (Which didn't make sense either.)

PC's post doesn't say the delay has been granted, so not sure the headline is accurate. Hopefuly the judge denies the request.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps, just perhaps, Fannick has additional witnesses. So rather than knocking Fannick trying to get them lined up, lets find out what he intends to offer.

Actually, Fannick has a reputation as a defense counsel to maintain. I believe I read that he was the public defender for a period of time, and he has won a case where there was a death penalty on the table. Since he will be appearing before the judges in Luzerne County many times in the future, I do not think he would cheapen his reputation by asking for postponements without a valid reason.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Update 44:

Something just occurred to me as I was re-reading this section: Is Melody Kocis BB?? The unbridled contempt and vitriol she expresses towards both Sean and Grant, saying that Sean bears the ultimate responsibility for the murder because of "the hatred he created against Bryan" (while grudgingly admitting he wasn't DIRECTLY involved) reminds me so much of BB. Just sayin'...

On a side note, PC will be delighted to learn I've found another mistake in the book. The footnotes for the first three of Melody's quotes attribute them to www.brentcorriganinc.com, Sean's site from the Grant era. Not until the fourth quote does the correct citation ("Bartusek email to PAC") appear.

jim said...

I'd say no, as MK does have some good things to say re: noninvolvment with the murder plus helping police.

Plus its disturbing to think that it could have been a women spending all her free time posting pics of semen-dripping sphincters on a blog.

will g said...

I think after the trial even BB had to (grudgingly) admit Sean and Grant weren't directly involved, even though (s)he did hold out hope there would be some kind of indictment when the trial was over. But you're right, Melody saying she was grateful that they helped the police is very un-BB-like. OTOH, it became clear that Melody was very aware of the Kocisphere when she commented under her own name on PC's blog right after the trial was over, IIRC. As far as it being disturbing to think of a woman posting those pics, well she did take over Bryan's porn business, didn't she?

will g said...

Also, when you think about it, whoever posted those screengrabs on BB's blog had unfettered access to all of Bryan's videos.

will g said...

OK, I realize that owning the DVD's and running them on a computer to get screengrabs isn't proof of anything. But BB also had no fear of getting a takedown notice from the Kocis estate. I'm pretty sure that posting a plethora of demeaning images from those copyrighted videos doesn't fall under the Fair Use doctrine.

jim said...

It's an interesting theory, I'll say that.

Geoff Harvard said...

Identifying BB is a major piece of unfinished business. It would have to be someone with the unmitigated hatred of a scorned former sexual partner who also has access to the Cobra library. Someone from from DJ Electro through the Cobra boys up to but not including Grant but maybe whatshisass the ski weekend impresario.

will g said...

I see you left out grieving and angry sister from your list Geoff. No matter. It was just that as I was reading Melody's quotes about Sean, I was so reminded of BB's motto "blood on his hands."

Regarding what she said about Bryan being a victim of Sean's fake ID, we have to remember that everything she knows about that was relayed to her by her brother. Of course she's going to believe that he was blameless in that situation. He would never admit to her, or anyone, that he knowingly put out kiddie porn.

Albert said...

My understanding of the sequence of events and therefore responsibilities, is a bit different. Remember, all four of the underage movies were filmed during only two separate weekends.

Chris Henriquez (sp ?) was the initial driving force. He was of legal age and wanted to do porn. His underage boyfriend was his key. Chris contacted Bryan Kocis and showed his 16 year old boyfriend to Brian on more than one video chat. The only picture we have of that conversation is what Elm called a cock with a life support system. Sean was about 5 ft. and 100 lbs. but had a nice 7 inches. The contrast was a selling point.

Chris created the photoshopped I.D. and e-mailed it to Bryan. Bryan had what he felt he needed and was sold. He flew Chris and Sean to Florida and filmed them having sex many times but the very first filming is still commonly available online.

The very first filming was the interview of Brent Corrigan on a blue foam cushion in a grass yard. It is during that interview Bryan himself said he had checked three separate I.D.'s on Brent and he was definitely 18. Bryan lied and to this point in time, Sean had done nothing wrong. Also released from this weekend was the top seller, 'Every Poolboy's Dream.' The interview came out later in 'Casting Couch 4.'

The second weekend months later with Brent Everett occurred in La Jolla, California. It was at the end of the filming of this second weekend that Bryan asked for I.D.'s. Bryan had what he wanted and again at this point, Sean had done nothing illegal.

Also at this point we can conclude, Bryan had spent and made a lot of money from the original Brent Corrigan film and wanted to make more. He also wanted to cover his ass. He allowed a 17 year old model to hold up a computer displaying the photoshopped I.D. Chris had created. Only after all this did Bryan demand Sean get a physical I.D. that would protect Bryan.

If you are a serious businessman interested in following the law, you get the legal stuff covered before you spend much money. Bryan had not only spent a lot of money but made a lot of money before he concerned himself with the legalities of what he was doing. I believe he knew it.

Bryan in fact argued after the fact that if they film underage, "It's all on them." He never took responsibility for what he, an adult, had done with an underage model. Again at this point in time, Sean had done nothing illegal. He just let himself be filmed. We have no evidence that Sean himself claimed to be of legal age when he was 17.

Sean did apologize to the industry and the world many times for his participation in the deception. He also got a blue star tattoo on his right butt cheek when he turned 18. That screwed Bryan over quite nicely and Bryan knew it.

So if a minor admits to letting himself be filmed having sex while an experienced adult film maker sells those recordings, who is at fault?

I believe Sean's apology was a necessary public relations move for any future film career. I do not believe he ever committed a crime. Bryan had and ignored his responsibilities. Bryan was an artist at his work but legalities were never his concern. Maybe he knew the Luzerne County courts too well for it to matter. I doubt Sean did.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Actually Albert a minor quibble you might have forgotten about this since its such an insane blunder in the US Legal code.

All participants including the models in underage sexual activity are guilty of producing child pornography if it is recorded.

This was a result of some unbelievably bad law writing by the "professional lawyers" who wrote the federal statues on child pornography,i.e. our US Congress you know the cabal that currently enjoys a 9% approval rating.

If you recall in the Cuadra trial PPO called a halt for a moment when Sean admitted from the stand he was underage when he first filmed. (to ask if he needed advice from Legal Counsel and because he had just federally incriminated himself)

PPO was aware this was a violation by Sean Lockhart of the Federal USC even as a mere participant and being a minor. USC makes no distinction nor absolves the minor for his part in said criminal activity.

It was widely reported that Tracy Lords was in fact arrested for creating and appearing in child pornography in her infamous case.

Of course later prosecutors claimed that was only to compel her testimony against producer Xcitment Video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Lords#Porn_career

The fact she was not ultimately tried still does not mean this probably unenforceable law could not be used by an overzealous idiotic federal prosecutor in the future.

I think we all know the adults are responsible in any case including the Brent Corrigan filming (that would be Robert Wagner and Bryan Kocis) but technically by Federal statute Sean was indeed as culpable and would have been if he had been 12 years old BY LEGAL Statute (not morally).

The Federal Law simply does not make such a distinction between producer and participant and is one of the sorriest excuses in the USC since the Mann Act.

Albert said...

I stand corrected. Thanks D.

Anonymous said...

I think as a juvenile, Sean would be tried as a juvenile rather than an adult. In state courts that means that punishment would last only until the individual turns 18. Since one can not administer juvenile punishment to an adult ex post facto, no real punishment could be given to him if he "confessed" in state court.

Federal Court could be different since there is no juvenile division. It would be up to the US Attorney to decide to prosecute or not (even if the juvenile was culpable as you indicate the law is given). However US Attorneys are reluctant to file cases unless of major importance (witness the Harlow and Joe being prosecuted by Luzerne County rather than the Feds). I believe that had a federal case been filed against Bryan and Cobra, the US Attorney would have declined to prosecute Sean. Of course since Sean would have been the chief witness in that case, any attorney representing Sean could have gotten immunity for Sean in return for his free testimony.

In a nutshell, Sean was never in danger of being prosecuted once he turned 18.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

PPO was aware this was a violation by Sean Lockhart of the Federal USC even as a mere participant and being a minor. DeWayne

the purpose of the federal judiciary is to interpret laws passed by congress by considering the intent of congress when it passed the laws, not just the literal wording of the laws. the most obvious intent of federal anti-child porn laws are to protect children, therefore, even with the literal language that "particpants" are liable in re underage porn laws, if congress' intent was to protect children, that would make prosecution of children under anti-child porn law counter to the intent of congress.

with respect to the judge stopping the hearing to ask lockhart if he wanted a lawyer ... wouldn't be surprised if Fannick presented this as a clear and obvious attempt to threaten and intimidate a witness.


Albert said...

Anon at 5:36. I love your attitude and intent. That is kind of where I came from in my recent post above. I wish what you said was even more true than it is. We have seen that judges run the spectrum from literal to creative.

My general observations remain as valid as DeWayns corrections.

The point I guess we might discuss around a fire with a bucket of beer on ice is, Should, do, or must judges follow the law as written. Or reversely, should they not, do they not or must they not enforce laws they judge as bad laws?

O a more technical point of your comment, we are not talking about a Federeal court.

Even more anecdotaly, I live in violation of a court order because that court order cannot be enforced as it contradicts Federal law.

Not all judges are geniuses or named Soloman. Some have names like Sheila Jackson Lee. From Texas I apologize but explain she came from New York or some such place.

Anonymous said...

at cuadra's trial, a luzerne county judge hinted to the luzerne county DA in open court that SL could "likely" be prosecuted pursuant to luzene county / pa laws against producing porn.

will g said...

That is complete BS Mr. Fondel, and you know it. PPO was concerned that Sean admitted to filming porn underage, it had NOTHING to do with "laws against producing porn," your favorite bugaboo that I thought we had finally shamed you into never mentioning again. And BTW, Sean didn't "produce" the porn, Kocis did.

will g said...

Oh, and just to point out an additional fallacy in your comment, the two underage porn shoots Sean was testifying about took place in Florida and California, as I understand it, so Luzerne County/PA laws would be irrelevant anyway.

will g said...

While I'm at it, I'd also like to point out that as far as I know, there are NO state laws "against producing porn." There are laws against prostitution, and unless a state like California specifically exempts pornography from being prosecuted under those laws, they could THEORETICALLY be used to prosecute pornographers. From a quick Google search I couldn't find any state laws that are explicitly "against producing porn." I could also not find a single case of a pornographer being prosecuted for simply producing porn in ANY state, including that horribly corrupt state of Pennsylvania. But you still haven't filed your police report against Michael Lucas, so maybe that will change.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Will the Prostitution charge was the exact gambit tried by the LA District Attorney in the early 90's in a bid to shut down San Fernando Valley Porn production.

It failed when the newly conservative dominated California Supreme Court slammed him down hard ruling that Porn production is not prostitution.

Anonymous said...

right! and it makes sense to say someone is in violation of a federal law that they've never been charged with

will g said...

OK, so the one time they tried using prostitution laws to prosecute porn, it resulted in the laws being rewritten to exempt pornographers. Unintended consequences Mr. Fondel!

Geoff Harvard said...

Isn't it a violation of federal law to induce a minor to cross state lines for immoral purposes?

will g said...

Mr. Fondel and I posted our last comments at the exact same time, and I have no clue what his means.

will g said...

Geoff I don't think anyone believes Kocis knew Sean was a minor at the time he "induced" him to cross state lines. After he got there, maybe.

Geoff Harvard said...

There was Florida with DJ Electro, and then there was Pennsylvania for the internship with Cobra Video for which RW provided the phoney stationary to fool the addict mom, both before Oct 31 2004.

will g said...

Florida was what I was referring to. There was no crossing state lines for the second shoot, and whatever that "internship" consisted of, I take it there was no filming involved. The age of consent in PA is 16, so technically there was nothing "immoral" going on even if they had sex.

will g said...

Update 45:

If by "MUCH better deal" you mean anything less than a life sentence with the possibility of parole, then I still respectfully disagree. Although any possibility of parole is admittedly a "MUCH better deal" than they got.

I wonder if PC has any update on Harlow's hearing?

DECEMBER 3, 2013 AT 7:35 AM

Geoff Harvard said...

http://blog.blacknews.com/2013/05/judge-mark-ciavarella-sentenced-selling-kids-prison-system101.html

Anonymous said...

Jim:

You are reminding me of the Bitchless Blog which kept saying that all Harlow had to do was to hold out and Luzerne County would run out of money and they would have to drop the case. Needless to say, that did not happen.

Will G is correct, the prosecution was not going to offer a Non-Luzerne County Resident who was involved in the murder of a local, anything less than Life without Parole. Even if it meant spending the lunch money for the jurors.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Thank you for that breaking news from last May Geoff!

will g said...

Ask and you shall receive. Thanks PC.

Anonymous said...

A couple of interesting points. First, the order indicates that Attorney Melnick is representing the County in this matter. I thought that he was no longer participating in this case.

Second, the request by Fannick refers to multiple witnesses. Presumably the state also will have more than one witness. If so,Fannick will not be depending on a solo performance by Harlow.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Melnick's been the prosecutor assigned to this hearing since at least last March, when he tried to get Fannick disqualified. That's OK, as you can see from my first comment there, I didn't even know he was still with the D.A.'s office. And the purported reason the hearing was postponed on Nov. 12 were these mysterious "witnesses."

will g said...

Sorry that's wrong, the new witnesses weren't mentioned on Nov. 12. We have known that they were the reason for this latest postponement before that document was posted though.

I just discovered something interesting in thisTimes Leader article from the Nov. 12 postponement: It says Fannick requested the postponement so Harlow could receive a mental-health evaluation NOW. That's the motion the judge rejected, although he then inexplicably granted the continuance anyway. The Citizens' Voice article is the one that says the motion was about Harlow's trial attorneys neglecting to order the evaluation.

Why on earth would Fannick be requesting that evaluation be conducted now?

will g said...

And again sorry, now I see that Shannon Crake had supposedly taken over for Melnick after she returned from maternity leave. Apparently they're both still involved.

will g said...

@SeanPaulLock is having a nervous breakdown right now on Twitter. Read the whole thread if you want to know what it's about (two guesses).

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Hi Will sent you an email

PC said...

"will g said...
Ask and you shall receive. Thanks PC.
"

No problem. I'm also working on trying to find out who these witnesses are. I hope to post a list shortly.

will g said...

Great idea.

Anonymous said...

How old is the picture of Joe?

Anonymous One

will g said...

It appears to be from 2009.

Anonymous said...

The Citizen's Voice Article has always influenced my opinion of Joe. See my previous comments. I still think he always intended to "shaft" Harlow by refusing to testify after the defense had built their case around him.

Those of you who think of Joe as a hero for plea bargaining and then refusing to come to Harlow's defense have too high an estimation of his character.

I think though that the later picture of Joe that was on PC's blog shows the rapid deteoration in his looks. Short of his evil nature comming out. That is why I asked what the date of the picture was.

Thanks Will for referencing the Citizen's Voice Article.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Not sure what article you're referring to. The last Citizens' Voice article I linked to was just about the Nov. 12 hearing.

will g said...

Also, if the defense had "built their case" around Joe corroborating Harlow's testimony, they were incompetent fools, since Joe had sworn to a different version in his plea and would have been thoroughly impeached if he had tried. Fannick is also a fool if he's considering having Joe testify at the PCRA hearing.

jim said...

As far as looking evil in photographs go, I don't think anyone can hold a candle to Harlow. I mean, just look at the post-arrest mug shots, made famous by PC. I rest my case.

And I've said this before, and it bears repeating: It was the sight of those mug shots that got me thinking that everyone's standard assumption, of Joe being the dominant partner, was not as assumable as everyone assumed back then.

You look at Joe's mug shot: he looks completely lost and befuddled, with a strong hint of fear.

Now look at Harlow's mug shot. The sneer, the arched eyebrow...it's a look of absolute arrogant contempt, with nary a hint of fear. It's as if he's saying to the camera: "I can't believe these inferior beings have captured me."

It's a little amazing to me that more people have not remarked on those expressions that were so clearly expressed on Arrest Day. But perhaps that the nature of the blogs...we sometimes focus so much on obscure minutiae, we ignore the obvious.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

I agree with you Jim and that attitude was seen the Blacks Beach weekend where Joe was drinking himself into obivion on the plane back to VA which Harlow thought was highly amusing.

Almost like Chris Reeves character in Deathtrap who laughed in the face of the danger that was the shared murder plot to kill Sydney's (Michael Caine)wife only Joe seemed to be aware of the danger of arrest and then when it happened he was of course fearful.

Harlow really was a piece of work and I still hold he would have been a budding serial killer if he had gotten away with this..thankfully most killers are inept.

Anonymous said...

To Will at Dec. 8, 11:15 PM

I am referring to the hyperlink at 2009 in your response at December 8, 6:16 AM.

Still an interesting article. Thanks again for posting it.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

Jim:

You and I must live in a different reality. I looked at the mug shots when they were arrested. To me, Harlow looked in shock. Joe on the other hand looked a smart ass with something to prove.

By the way the photo I was referring to of Joe was the post conviction photo taken about 2 years (or so) after the conviction. This is where Joe appears to be bald, and lost much flesh in his face.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

DeWayne:

This information about Joe drinking himself into oblivion and Harlow finding this amusing. What is your source on this? While I do not doubt that Joe could be a heavy drinker, when would Harlow have an opportunity to comment on this?

Even if true, it would not prove anything about their characters. Though heavy drinking could explain where a lot of the money Harlow was earning was being spent by Joe.

Anonymous One

will g said...

Oh I didn't even look at the text in that 2009 post, I only linked it for the image.

will g said...

Update 46:

Hate to burst your bombshell, but as we did indeed discuss much earlier, it seems that Harlow is entitled to publicly-funded lawyers on his first appeal, which the PCRA hearing is still a part of. If he were to then appeal in federal court, he'd be on his own. So it is almost certain that Fannick is being paid by the state.

jim said...

Doesn't the state appoint the attorney in that case?

jim said...

In any case, I think my larger point still stands: The lack of any monetary request, be it for a lawyer or canteen whatever, is highly unusual in my experience.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Anon the source for Joe drinking so much on the flight from San Diego back to Virginia was a very amused Harlow who called a mutual friend of mine to report all that had transpired on Sunday.

They had gone to Sea World that Sunday morning (Harlows insistence) since Joe was hyperventilating over the fact Sean and Grant had not returned a phone call since dropping them back at the hotel on Saturday evening.

Joe "KNEW" instinctively knew at this point that they had been set up.

They had tried to get me to take a phone call as well.

Looking back we know SDPD shadowing them at Sea World wanted to make an arrest here but PA had already decided since they had the return ticket and were expected to board that afternoon to let them.

Oh Joe was well soused by the time they got off the plane I was told they had to use a wheelchair from Jetway to parking lot.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

BTW intimation was made by Harlow in this phone call as well that he knew by Sunday at Sea World they were being shadowed by detectives. Which probably amped up poor Joe to near hysteria.

I think and I remember discussing this with Peter at one point the fact they were allowed to get on the plane and travel home when Joe full well expected to be arrested before the jet took off from San Diego explains his cross country emotional crash and drinking.

And also explains Harlows "we made it they got nothing" frame of mind which carried over to the arrest at Boston Market 2 weeks later.

I believe Harlow thought "they let us leave San Diego because they did not have enough for an arrest"

In his state he was probably euphoric and giddy, very obvious he had been selling himself and Joe a very self delusional story that Law enforcement had NOTHING.

My take is in Harlows mind his repeated use of the "third person" to refer to events at Bryans house and the murder relieved him of all culpability. ( I really believe HE thought that)

So of course on that Sunday Harlow professed not to be worried at all about anything that had happened Friday and Saturday.

Joe being the more rational of the two was hysterical.

jim said...

VERY interesting.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Jim you can probably guess who this mutual friend was. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Dewayne:

I do not believe that drinking onself into a stupor is the more rational way of handling something.

If anything it would confirm the irrational nature of Joe. I believe that they call it obsessive/compulsive. We have previous instances of it before:

1) Three calls to Sean/Roy in a minute demanding an agreement to work to gether.

2) Similar habits with Renee when she did not answer a phone call.

3) Sleeping with a gun (Jim used expression pistol whipping Harlow, Justin and Andrew into exercising)

4) the Mysterious gun shot hole in the ceiling of their bedroom at the Boydello.

5) The assault on the former owner of the logo of "Boys R Us" which we believe took place prior to Joe and Harlow getting together.

6) Joe's statement to PC that he is a Serial Killer.

7) Joe's comments to fellow inmates about his plans to get off by throwing Harlow under the bus.

8) Joe's statement that he is not gay but is truly "in love" with Harlow.

Oh yeah, Joe is a truly SANE individual, and a rock of stability.

Also if the mutual friend was told these things (The incident on the plane and the phone call after they flew back to Virginia)
why did they not come out at trial when he took the stand. I would think that the prosecutor would love to have this information presented to the Jury.

Anonymous One

jim said...

"Jim you can probably guess who this mutual friend was. ;-)"

Elm?

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Yes Jim Elm..and I know this might seem surprising to long time readers but everything I was told about that weekends events from Joe and Harlows perspective (by Elm) was later revealed accurate.

For instance by Saturday night I knew about both the CrabCatcher the Hotel Joe and Harlow were at and the visit to Blacks Beach. (only the public knew about Blacks from Elm,My blog and Joes statements)

The drunken behavior on the plane more than likely did not come out at trial because it was Harlow that described it to Elm. (Hear-say) Testimony that was not needed since Joe had pled out and it reflected on his state of mind not Harlows.

We also know Elm was extremely worried about being called to PA at some point especially in relation to Renee Martin.

So he shut down about a lot that transpired that weekend and later removed whole blog posts if you remember. I think we all knew almost every post that went up was screen capped too.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Anon Joe was Rational in relation to Harlows complete disconnect with reality is what I am driving at.

And yes Joe getting stinking drunk on a long 4 hour hour flight back was a perfectly sensible thing to do in my opinion.

I am being a bit facetious neither man had a great grounding in any rational behavior of course.

What I am getting at is its very obvious ole Joe did wake up to the real legal danger Harlow had placed them in that Saturday very quickly.

Like that very evening just hours after they had said goodby to Grant and Sean!

DeWayne In San Diego said...

This is the chronology of that Saturday evening all after 6 PM.

The first sign of panic from Joe came to me at about 730 Saturday night something about a mutual blog post we all did (Elm,ME and Joe on Harlows site) showing pix from Blacks Beach.

Pictures had been provided to me (via Elm) by Joe to describe the "mutual collaboration" that Joe,Harlow,Sean and Grant had agreed to that day.

If you all recall Grant and Sean were supposed to also post the photos on BrentCorrigan.com

They didn't of course and after Joe and Harlow said their goodbys that Saturday (and see you Sunday), Grant stopped responding to Joe by phone or text.

So Joe as was his want when he wasn't getting a response from Grant did his usual back channel grab for info from Elm (and me) and since they were in town they wanted to talk to me or even meet for coffee.

Looking back this might have been a fascinating encounter (SNARK)

It was then relayed to me that Joe really wanted my number (more insistent) so he could "discuss something"

Elm had already told me Joe was getting upset because Grant had stopped answering the phone (and Sean was ignoring Harlow) they were supposed to set up a time to meet on Sunday.

I point blank refused to talk to Joe and told Elm do not provide my cell number and I "had NO desire to talk to Joe or Harlow for any conceivable reason".

I was bit histrionic (raising my voice) at that point and Elm wanted to KNOW WHY I didn't want to meet with Joe and Harlow since their BEING IN SAN DIEGO and agreeing to film with Sean had to mean they WERE NEVER Involved with Bryans murder.

(Yes Jim you probably find that amusing since you and I were highly disturbed by that weekends events and we remember Elm publicly mused that Joe and Harlow being in San Diego was validation of their innocence)

What of course Elm wanted from me on the phone was a statement challenging that belief of his that Joe and Harlow were no longer suspects (who knows Joe MIGHT have been listening on speaker phone since Elm had two cells)

then Elm said "DeWayne what do you know?" (was that a prompt from Joe I have no idea)

I dissembled to get off the phone (without admitting anything) by getting angry and shouted I haven't heard SQUAT from Grant about this whole weekend "series of meetings" I then quit the call.

At this point I was beyond confused by the two days events,,Gobsmacked actually with the very idea of Grant and Sean actually meeting two men I KNEW were the only serious suspects.

So I had the photos from Blacks and Joes version of what had gone down that day.

This was staring me in the face I had also been texting Grant Friday and Saturday with no response (which based on the photos I was looking at made me extremely angry)

The result was I agreed to POST the Blacks Beach photos that evening of this (to me bewildering) meeting of Joe,Harlow,Sean and Grant from that Saturday on my blog.

I did this out of Anger and a building sense of Betrayal that this could ONLY MEAN that all four men were co-conspirators in murder.

My agreeing to post seemed to calm Joe momentarily and I was no longer pestered by Elm to talk to Joe.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Then I went for a drive.

While in the car I made one last attempt to contact Grant to demand an explanation for the days events. My usual mo was to text first this time I called and I distinctly remember not even one ring the call instantly connected like a millisecond after I hit send.

Grant nonchalantly asked what was up.

I said point blank "I KNOW you all were at Blacks I have posted to that effect and why in the hell would you MEET with those two or was it all a lie?

Grants response

"We are heading to SDPD for debrief and EVERYTHING you and I discussed on Jan 27 holds and is true NOTHING has changed.

I then told Grant

"I have been asked by Joe to talk to him on the phone and or meet them both for coffee"

Grant

"under no circumstances talk to Joe or Harlow and certainly DO NOT MEET with men YOU and I KNOW are dangerous"

Grant then added

"Would you like to talk to a SDPD Detective here? he will corroborate"

Grant then added

"all will come out and please take that blog post down there will never be ANY production with those two"

will g said...

Jim that's a fair question, but I believe Fannick can volunteer to be the court-appointed appeals lawyer.

Mr. Fondel will be first in line for this movie!

DeWayne In San Diego said...

I thanked him said I didnt need to talk to the nice policeman and said I am on the road but will go home and remover that post.

Grant said thanks and everything will be made right and public soon.

He ended the call and I drove straight home removed my Blacks Beach "Sean and Harlow film a porno" post and pointedly refused to answer my phone when Elm started calling wanting to know why I had taken the post down.

My refusal to talk to Elm any further that night and on Sunday until Joe and Harlow were on the plane no doubt goosed Joe's anxiety on Sunday.

When I finally did talk to Elm late Sunday afternoon he had already spoken to Harlow since Joe was home passed out.

Thats when he told me Harlow seemed amused not only at Joes behavior but the way Sean and Grant had cut all contact after they dropped them off Saturday.

And by my refusal to talk to Harlow or Joe.

Now tell me would any "rational mind" find all this amusing?

No the rational course is the one Joe took getting plastered and passing out he knew they were FUCKED.

Harlow simply did not care a typical Sociopaths response.

will g said...

Very interesting indeed DeWayne. Elm has always insisted that H&J knew they were being recorded on Black's Beach, which makes absolutely no sense given what came out of Harlow's mouth. In reality it really only dawned on them that something was up when Grant cut off contact. Then when Joe recalled Harlow's near-confession on the beach, he proceeded to drink himself into oblivion. Completely understandable.

Anonymous said...

DeWayne:

Your comments are extremely interesting.

First: you were wise not to give Joe your phone #. You would have been bombarded by him with all sorts of calls. It also might have given you an all expense paid trip to Luzerne County and back as a Prosecution Witness.

Second: The anxiety that Joe was feeling may have been more towards the lack of progress in getting Sean and Grant to participate in a joint projects and not necessarily worrying about the criminal possibilities.

After all, Joe had this idee fixe that putting Sean and Harlow together in a porno film was going to make millions for Joe.

One thing is definite though, Joe did get drunk on the plane, and Harlow did call Elm afterwards and relate this incident to him.

Anonymous One

Anonymous said...

About update 46:

"Where they are now" was the topic sentence of your update. Then you go and talk about Harlow not asking for money?

The first question that comes to my mind is that Harlow has been since he was arrested, somewhat hestitant to talk about the specific crime except to claim that he is innocent. Could he feel that by asking for money he would be required to divulge information that he does not want to give.

The second question is the "showering of funds" confined only to paying for Attorney Fannick and his canteen, or does this money also go to eliminating his financial debts and possibly assistance to his family? We can probably assume that Harlow does care about his mother and siblings. And for those of you who think he is the equivalent of Jeffrey Dahlmer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Garcy, there is the possibility that Mom could hold funds for him for when he "gets out".

My personal belief is that there are some very wealthy persons (more than one) who sympathize with him and want to make him feel better. (They may look upon him as a little boy who has done something really bad, or they may hope that he is actually innocent). They also have loads of money, so they do not mind parting with it. After all, when Harlow was "escorting" he had a very high class clientele willing to pay big bucks for his services. {Nep Malachi was a pro bono exception that Harlow probably considered a true friend.}

Anonymous One

jim said...

"I was bit histrionic (raising my voice) at that point and Elm wanted to KNOW WHY I didn't want to meet with Joe and Harlow since their BEING IN SAN DIEGO and agreeing to film with Sean had to mean they WERE NEVER Involved with Bryans murder.

(Yes Jim you probably find that amusing since you and I were highly disturbed by that weekends events and we remember Elm publicly mused that Joe and Harlow being in San Diego was validation of their innocence)"

OMG yes, you and I shared the same emotions that day, for the same reasons, when we heard the news.

On top of that, I was mortified authorities had actually permitted them to travel across state lines. That, plus the weeks w/o an arrest (despite the SWAT raid) made me despair that they would EVER get arrested.

And like you, I didn't come to the conclusion that Elm pushed that nude beach meeting = innocence. Like you, I came to the conclusion it meant all 4 had to be guilty of a conspiracy to murder.

Which was contrary to what I had been arguing online for weeks. This made me quite despondent for while. I pulled back from my usual frequent visits to the Kocisphere, and as a consequence on the day when they DID actually get arrested, I did not check in until late in the day. And thus ironically, became one of the last to know about it. :-)

jim said...

"Elm has always insisted that H&J knew they were being recorded on Black's Beach, which makes absolutely no sense given what came out of Harlow's mouth."

"Knew" is overstating it. The true word to use here is "suspected."

In fact, at the Crab Catcher we have Joe saying exactly that, refusing to talk until on the beach the next day as they didn't know whether Grant was wearing a "wire."

There WAS suspicion. There WAS NOT 100% certain knowledge.

And here's the thing. I never really understood why this beach destination made a difference in whether Harlow and Joe would talk or not...until I made my field trip to "Blacks Beach" a few years ago.

It was an acoustic nightmare. You had the sound of the waves, plus the sound of the wind roaring up these massive steep cliffs (powerful enough to hold gliders aloft, hanging suspended in mid-air). You could be 10 feet away from someone, and not hear what they are saying. It's amazing to me the key fob could record what it did, and although there were unintelligible gaps in the recording, it did an amazing job considering the conditions.

That plus everyone not wearing clothing, it was easy to see how Harlow and Joe felt comfortable and secure talking freely and truly on that beach, all suspicions allayed for the moment.

Of course, it's interesting hearing from DeW about these Elm calls that day. Clearly, Harlow and Joe had shared their suspicions with Elm, and then Elm seems to be calling DeW, to get either confirmation or denial of these suspicions.

So, it's clear none of them knew, but they did all to a certain extent entertain the possibility of a set up.

Which does not negate anything said on that beach, where like I said all suspicions would have been instantly allayed.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

"It was an acoustic nightmare. You had the sound of the waves, plus the sound of the wind roaring up these massive steep cliffs (powerful enough to hold gliders aloft, hanging suspended in mid-air). You could be 10 feet away from someone, and not hear what they are saying. It's amazing to me the key fob could record what it did, and although there were unintelligible gaps in the recording, it did an amazing job considering the conditions.

That plus everyone not wearing clothing, it was easy to see how Harlow and Joe felt comfortable and secure talking freely and truly on that beach, all suspicions allayed for the moment."

Looking back maybe Harlow was justified in his belief he had nothing to be worried about.

If you recall my blog post after the arrest "How do you wear a wire on a nude beach? we all had bought into this Hollywood cliche of what a "wire" looked like. Not realizing that Law Enforcement was forced to move on to more advanced methods.

And professional crooks not amateurs like J & H, the Mexican Narco chiefs had become aware in the early 90's that when you met to discuss "business" you were usually in a sauna naked with all potential electronic devices of any description left outside.(key fobs,cells,pagers,pens,packs of cigarettes, glasses even)

As for Blacks you are right the noise is deafening at times cell calls down there are as ridiculous as the idea of talking on a jet. Or with your bluetooth cranked to max at freeway speeds.

I have a real appreciation for those DEA audio engineers to think they had only from Friday (Crabcatcher) to early Saturday to choose the once listening device that would work in that noise hell environment.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Anon one. If Elm or Renee Martin had ever been put on the stand I would have most assuredly been subpenaed as well.

I was somewhat surprised (but relieved) at the first potential witness list I wasn't in that group of 200 plus names.

Something I will add here I have never said before.

Grant knows this because I told him that Saturday Jan 27th 2007.

When I said I wanted to hear the whole story from him I added a very strong warning.

I said If I ever believe you are Sean were involved or ever come across any evidence that points to this being a conspiracy to murder.."well Grant I am not going to join you in jail I will report what I know"

His response was telling and to my thinking reassuring and this is what I relayed to Albert.

Grant simply said "I understand"

And then proceeded to tell me all.

and unlike Joe and Harlow who in the same position would have been spinning a tall tale of lies and accusations. Everything I heard that night from Grant was ultimately revealed in court as truth.

I was not the partisan everyone thought on the blogs a lot of that was for effect. While I certainly became convinced Grant and Sean were not apart of a wider conspiracy this was something I had to convince myself of over several weeks.

I had a certain PA Detectives number in my speed dial by January 31,2007 as well as SDPD.

I only had occasion to call PA twice in the next 5 months.

And that was to report other actors engaged in Obstruction of Justice. Lucky for them they were never charged.

The only time I came close to calling PA about Sean and Grant was that weekend in April.

will g said...

If Elm or Renee Martin had ever been put on the stand I would have most assuredly been subpenaed as well.

But she was, and you weren't.

jim said...

Well, she was barely put up there. For 30 minutes (or as I put it back then, her 15 minutes times two).

I presume DeW feels he would have been called to rebut Renee if she had been called to the stand to give more extensive and dramatic testimony.

Geoff Harvard said...

Jan. 27,2007. That reminds me that there are people who had been following the Kocis/Lockhart feud on Juicygoo, etc. for a couple of years, and I didn't start following this until July 2007.
Gay porn is a raw deal for everyone involved except for the producers and distributors. Sort of like graduate school, except there no one gets arrested or murdered. You think you are having fun at it at the time, but looking backward you see you have a handful of dust.
The whole story is just pointless and disgusting except as a cautionary tale, not even worth a Gus Van Sant movie.

Geoff Harvard said...

We need a where are they now post for everyone who tried to inject himself into this story. Where is Renee (an I-40 rest stop)? Where is Nep (cruising the Norfolk waterfront)? And so forth.

jim said...

Here's a random question for you all: Has the Jason Curious web site ceased to exist? JasonCurious.com seems to be a dead link, along with the all important "news desk."

I was getting ready to write my final post here, and wanted to look something up there.

Very sad if it's no more, that means some of my greatest early posts are lost forever. :-(

will g said...

Yes he retired from the adult industry in 2011, according to Wikipedia. I knew about that, I just didn't realize it was that long ago. How time flies. He's now working on the internet operations of the L.A. Kabbalah Center, I believe. I don't know why people don't just leave blogs up for posterity after they "retire." But I guess he felt his old life in porn conflicts with his new one.

Albert said...

I am still sitting in the same desk chair at the same table I was in 2005. Same room, same apartment in San Antonio. Sometimes it is amazing where one can interject oneself from the comfort of nowhere.

Geoff, I don't disagree with your point. Walking through an adult bookstore in January of 2005 I saw a face on a video cover that was not like the 'deer in the headlights' faces of all the other videos. The face said to me, "I am up to some shit." Watched the VHS tape in a private booth and bought it.

The road that followed still goes on. I saw bits of history from a unique point of view. DeWayne, then Grant and finally Sean trusted me. Grant knew DeWayne was sharing with me what they discussed. Grant was afraid for their lives and wanted the truth to survive. D and I were that backup.

I have had the privilege to know things and the frustration of not being able to speak. I never doubted Sean and Grant like D did briefly but I was concerned for their lives. The emotional ups and downs were real. They stressed the relationship between D and I and it is no surprise they destroyed the relationship between Sean and Grant.

This is much more than a cautionary tale or a handful of dust. History is told by the winners. That is all Jim's blog does, tell history. It is only pointless to the dead.

will g said...

They're talking! (About cheese.)

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Sorry I didn't see the new activity Google does not always forward emails on comments. (the feed sent Wills Cheese comment today missed everyone else's)

Will, to answer your comment on Elm and Renee I meant I would have been the witness called in THEIR Trial. If PA had decided to charge them both for Obstruction of Justice. Not the Harlow trial.

At the time it seemed a real possibility they would be charged with Renee certainly the more culpable.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

A comment on Jason Curious website and the new direction in Porn websites.

Mark Wilson my webmaster was behind an orderly shutdown of Jasons website at his request in 2011 (this was after Jason asked if I wanted to buy into or write for the News Desk) I believe he made the same offer to Mark.

Jason made it clear (as Will notes) he was moving into a new non porn direction with the Kabbalah center.

I declined to take on that site I felt Jason was uniquely qualified there and no one else would have that impact.

The industry and blogs have moved on while the blog is not obsolete its purpose and direction is changing. A Blog or Wordpress site with a blog element is now a nexus a place to integrate our Social Media accounts.

Many porn bloggers have dozens of mostly semi-automated sites.

In 2005-7 The Porn Blogs and independent porn sites (JuicyGoo etc)drove the majority of traffic and sales to porn studios.

Today one studio head here in San Diego told me fully 50% of his sales and traffic come from a simple Google search. The studios love this because the affiliate sales commission is not paid (as would be to a blogger or site)

So like middlemen everywhere if you want to stay in business you must get creative.

Jason Sechrest was always savvy and knew how to make money off the porn game his moving on really said more about the sharp painful decline in the Gay Porn business in Los Angeles.

Almost all California Gay Porn production is in the Bay Area,San Diego and Las Vegas NV now.

Jim while a blogger site or personal Wordpress Blog is free (or less than $10 dollars a month) if you have a porn blog you pay for hosting and maintaining a larger database of images and video.

DeWayne in SD which started in March 2007 as of November 2013 25GB in size 250gb in monthly traffic with approx 3500-4000 daily visits.

The cost to maintain my site a medium size blog is 60-80 a month on a Virtual Private Server (one step down from a dedicated 250 dollar a month server)

Of course I have been fortunate and make more than enough to pay for this.

I am sure in 2011 Jason could have maintained his site until sales declined to the break even point.

Since he was moving in a new direction it made sense for him to cut the connection to porn and move on.

Geoff Harvard said...

Was meint :-P?

will g said...

Since DeWayne mentioned his name, and he has commented on this blog and elsewhere in the Kocisphere, I'll link to DeWayne's post about disturbing developments regarding Mark Wilson.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

This brings me to my site DeWayne in San Diego. I posted last night the blog is going on hiatus and suspension thru the holiday period and will relaunch in a leaner more relevant format in January 2014.

This was planned and in early discussion with Mark Wilson of Great Atlantic Media (my host and web developer) since late summer.

Mark Wilson's disappearance (and presumed death) post Oct 27th 2013 has moved up my transfer and blog rebuilding. Details are here http://dewayneinsd.com/blog-suspension-and-hiatus/ (old site) and on my personal site.

http://dewayneinsd.me/?p=1

I have decided in order to start fresh and forgo a transfer of 7 years worth of posts to the new site.

The last move of the 25gb database in March of this year (server move San Diego to Anaheim) while seamless to readers involved two web techs and 2 days of effort and I had Mark Wilson there to supervise.

I have a full blog back up of posts including all the early 2007-2009 posts on and about the Kocis sphere and Brent Corrigan.

At some point I plan on restoring those posts.

The vast bulk of my site much like Jasons News Desk was the associated porn images and videos contained in the database.

Downloading all my posts 2007-2013 some 4500 in all took me all of 15 minutes.

Restoring that copy will I am sure take considerably longer! ;-0

will g said...

Jinx DeWayne! I beat you by 3 minutes.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Yes Will I am blogger rusty I haven't used this much in years and Blogger does not accept the html for links I am used to in Wordpress. I am assuming its the A tag for links and not <a href= etc which we use in Wordpress ;-)

DeWayne In San Diego said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
will g said...

No I use the <a href= etc. here, it's always worked fine.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

New Link with repost on Mark Wilson on my personal site. Since the link to my main blog will go offline on Monday New Blog Domain pending transfer of DeWayneinsd.com

Just to clarify I allready have a text asking.

Dewayneinsd.com will redirect I do not have a timeline for that since Mark Wilson's GAMG was my domain registrar I have to go thru a procedure to "unlock" the domain and transfer to my new host Arvixe.

When someone "disappears" and is not declared dead this causes all sorts of legal and financial details to be locked in place.

Kind of legal limbo so I am sure it will take awhile to sort out Great Atlantic Media and how its dissolved.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Will hehe I forgot to "close my tag" and add the correct tag at that (wordpress does that for us protects us from our own mistakes)

Geoff Harvard said...

Mark Wilson, indeed. In March 2009 when some "
Mark Wilson" was threatening to sue me, etc., I tried to contact him at his published address at the Coca-Cola building in Atlanta. The telephone operator there was able to inform me that there were no outside tenants at the Coca-Cola Building. I gave you guys names, an address, and a phone number in Greensboro, NC. I think the older partner is Signal 6, which would account for the change in location and personality of u-no-hoo. Mark Wilson was one of the same cast of characters. People like being bullshitted.

DeWayne In San Diego said...

Albert said...

".. I saw bits of history from a unique point of view. DeWayne, then Grant and finally Sean trusted me. Grant knew DeWayne was sharing with me what they discussed. Grant was afraid for their lives and wanted the truth to survive. D and I were that backup."

I agree on reflection Grant NEEDED to say what he did on January 27th 2007 despite flying in the face of all accepted legal advice when your are suspected.

They felt everyone had turned their backs and decided that Sean and Grant HAD to be involved.

Albert.."I have had the privilege to know things and the frustration of not being able to speak. I never doubted Sean and Grant like D did briefly but I was concerned for their lives. The emotional ups and downs were real. They stressed the relationship between D and I and it is no surprise they destroyed the relationship between Sean and Grant."

Yes it did Albert but thanks to Will for that innocuous link to Sean's twitter.

It Makes the point

They do still speak,they talk and Sean (along with Brent Everett) was at Grants Birthday party last year.

Relationships come and go.

What Sean and Grant went thru 2006-2009 would have destroyed emotionally and physically many people (and has)

What I am also touching on here is something that was brought to my attention by Peter and from another Porn Studio Producer.

Say what you will about Bryan Kocis the man.

His Father,Mother and Sister were the real collateral damage.

The twisted and devious criminal conspiracy of Joe and Harlow had very far reaching affects.

Whatever residual sympathry I might ever have had for Harlow (his wretched family life,believing Joe was the Svengali at one point) were long ago burnt away.

I have not one ounce of compassion left for either man.

I am thankful for one thing that neither man received the Death Penalty.

I believe killers should always spend a lifetime in reflection and punishment for what they do.

We always had the wrong idea about the Death Penalty it lets people off it assumes an afterlife.

Prolong that Hell (here on Earth) because once Joe and Harlow are dead the punishment ends.

Ever wonder WHY most Agnostics and Atheists oppose the death penalty? ;-0

will g said...

Enough of that Geoff. I suppose you also think his disappearance is a hoax.

will g said...

BTW Geoff the police searched his house in ATLANTA, not Greensboro.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 212   Newer› Newest»