Closing arguments are over. It's in the jury's hands, starting tomorrow. A few trial watcher observations are trickling into PC's blog.
While I cannot imagine how the past few days could have possibly gone better for the prosecution in this case, I think it may be advisible for us all to take a sobering moment here and remember that *anything* can happen in a jury room. It only takes one loony case to be illogical and unreasonable and hang a jury in a criminal trial. Yes, it's a horrific thought, but it must be kept in mind...and prayed against. So, lets not jinx this by celebrating prematurely. At least not too much! :-)
Another alternate consideration, far less catastrophic (indeed, IMO, not at all unwelcome in fact)...a deal could still be struck, any time before the jury comes in with a verdict. Granted this is unlikely to be offered now by the prosecution, now that the time and expense of a trial has been outlayed. But you never know. I think it's fair to say Harlow would jump gleefully at the chance of getting a life sentence at this point. Is there something extra Harlow could offer to coax the prosecution extend such a deal once again? Offer to testify against Renee Martin or other Harlowites involved in Obstruction of Justice perhaps?
Like I said, you never know; as long as the jury is still out, possibilities remain. Which is something to keep in mind now, as we wait.
Update: Deliberations begin. Instructions took an hour and a half to get through. Olszewski: “these are the longest instructions I've ever heard given to a jury.”
Update 2: This jury question doesn't sound good for Harlow.
43 comments:
"A few trial watcher observations are trickling into PC's blog."
Jim,
You know the 'good stuff' doesn't get posted until later on in the evening. :)
As I've speculated on PC's blog, I think that Harlow had decided that he would prefer the death sentence to life without parole. I think that's why he went to trial rather than accept the same plea deal that Joe accepted.
I'll go out on a limb and say Murder One with Life. I don't know if it was a slam dunk on putting the firefighters life at risk.
But I'll agree that we just don't know what could happen. While I've never had a case I was involved with go to a jury, I've watched enough judges and referees head into their chambers certain I'd won, only to be disappointed hours or days later when the Court went a different way.
Lichtenstein painting, or real cartoon, I can't tell; it's giving me a headache.
During this break, just wanted you to know how much I've enjoyed your blog, good comments, summary.
Life without possibility of parole is the sentence, but for 1st or 2nd, don't know, and practically, I don't think it matters. My vote, the jury will give him life without parole.
If he gets off, Pennsylvania is the place to be with enemies.
Jim,
What about your doing interview with Marie?
I would like to know what she told the DA, why the Bitter break with the boys, her certainty that Harlow did it, whether Joe got a color t.v., has cable, who paid for it and how, her view on Joe reneging, how she feels about giving such a crucial piece of evidence in the case [Plan letter], who did the 28 post-mortem stabs and why, etc.
Seriously, I am lacking totally in taste for suggesting this, but her take, whatever it is, would be interesting.
Over at Elms, he posts:
Every email that I ever received from Joe Kerekes was from a email account under Harlow's name. Joe controlled the email accounts. Joe even told me that he sent the emails to Bryan. Joe had a little issue with drinking and when he drank he would blab.
???
Renee is going to be a mystery till the friggin end and then beyond!
I personally believe it will be a quick verdict. Life without the possibility of Parole.
I hope that is the case.
"zach said...
Jim,
What about your doing interview with Marie?"
You mean Renee I take it. Well,
1) I normally don't do interviews; and
2) I can only imagine what she would say to me these days if I asked her for one; and
3) The one time I did do a pseudo-interview here (everyone got to ask questions openly, in fact), it was with Renee.
And it was very unsatisfactory, I must say. It was obvious she was being VERY tactically selective which questions she would answer, and which she would not.
For example, I would ask her about contributors to Harlow (she controlled the Defense Fund), and she would clam up.
The only questions she would answer were things that we already knew about, or would do no harm to the Harlow defenders network.
Finally we all gave up, out of boredom. Her performance was one of the factors that led me (and others) to conclude back then her "conversion" was less than sincere.
And lo and behold...there she was yesterday, in sub-freezing Luzerne County...the place where last week she could not wait to fly out of (after staking out the airport ot see if Grant had left yet, LOL!)...all ready and willing to testify for Harlow.
Now being able to think about this trial-
I have a strange/different perspective than before.
While we were all blogging about it - it was different- hard to explain.
Now - I feel - really sorry for the families-
I even feel for Bryan Kocis- [I am sorry to say I did not feel much for him before]
but it was a horrible death- perpetrated by two savages-
that is what rang through loud and clear and what I feel now -
Sorry I am a bit chatty here-
but these post thoughts keep coming.
What the hell is up with "The Preacher George" anyway-
"Harlows Number One Supporter"
even as I type-
This moron did not even bother going to the trial.
Not even showing up to support-
left Harlow with ONLY himself to support - himself!
George what kind of support is that?
You were one big useless windbag through this whole situation-
C,mon George - what happened???
"Every email that I ever received from Joe Kerekes was from a email account under Harlow's name. Joe controlled the email accounts."
This was actually discovered about Harlow and Joe early on, back in February 2007 in fact, the early early early days back on Jason Curious.
Ah, those were heady days. We were investigating the murder almost as fast as Hannon was back then. Maybe even faster in some areas.
I forget the exact sequence, but IIRC someone IDed the Drake photo as Harlow; then someone dug up the Le Cirque photo w/Harlow and Brent in Harlow's Photobucket account; naturally this set off a tidal wave of speculation; then people started Googling Harlow, found his "stareyes" email addy...
And I *think* it was determined somehow that Joe (we knew him as "Mark" back then) was using that email too...and I *think* he was the one who later explained that as Boisrus manager he screened the emails of all the escorts (including Harlow's) as part of his regular manager duties.
That explanation actually didn't sound too unreasonable back then. Porn stars and escorts probably get bombarded with a lot of nut mail, and that seemed like a pretty common sense, routine managerial thing to do at an escort/porn company.
It has only been at this trial that this has been turned into something more sinister.
VJ... I agree that Bryan Kocis died a horrible death. I also think Roman Catholic priest John Geoghan died a horrible death when he was strangled top death in prison. Neither of the deaths of these men changed what they were or what they did.
Bryan Kocis did not become a good man because he died horribly. He lived to manipulate and abuse young men. People were a game to him. He was vile. He died. Father Geoghan abused young men. He was vile, he died.
The murder was abhorrent. No sympathy for him here. He and Geoghan are in the same place.
V.J. said...
Sorry I am a bit chatty here-
but these post thoughts keep coming.
What the hell is up with "The Preacher George" anyway-
"Harlows Number One Supporter"
even as I type-
This moron did not even bother going to the trial.
Not even showing up to support-
left Harlow with ONLY himself to support - himself!
George what kind of support is that?
You were one big useless windbag through this whole situation-
C,mon George - what happened???
----
Well, he might have actually shown up later.
I kept a pretty close eye on who was there the week I was in that court. And he was for sure not there then.
Funny thing is that I saw many people come in and sit for a full day or two days, and then that was it for them. I saw nobody stay as long as I did. There were some attorneys from other areas dropping in to see how this team would handle a tough case. Again a day or two and gone.
And there was even a full after lunch session where I was the only one who was not a family member.
So it was easy for me to see who came and went.
But Pastor George might have just been intrigued by the case, and the boyish looks of Harlow. But again he might be there if the DP is handed down and Harlow wants a chance to fess up and fly right, before flying outta here.
V.J. said...
I personally believe it will be a quick verdict. Life without the possibility of Parole.
I hope that is the case.
----
First or second degree?
I also agree that they will not want to put Harlow to sleep. Nor will the jury want him out in the public with any potential of ever meeting up with another bad apple with cruel intentions.
Life no parole would be very very tough on Harlow psychologically. It would be a long tough learning experience. It would be tough on anyone.
I have a theory about Preacher George I've been meaning to verify, but never got around to.
I know prisons are not allowed to record or monitor conversations between prisoners and their attornies; that would violate attorney-client priviledge.
What I wonder about it is, are conversations between prisoners and ministers also not allowed to be monitored or recorded in PA, under the theory of the priest-penitant priviledge?
If the answer is yes, then ministers like Preacher George would be the ideal and legal way to send messages out of jails, without worry of them being recorded and used against them. Unlike certain 3-way calls, for example. :-)
In fact, a shady "minister" could theoretically make a tidy sum offering to be a confidential courier this way, pretending to hear "confessions" from prisoners.
Joe looks creepy!
Kevin,
I agree with everything that you said.
My God Jim,
You may REALLY be onto something-
Priest/inmate communications are not monitored are they??
Yeah, if you are so susceptible to the bad influence of other evil persons out there in the big bad world, should ever be given the another chance to screw up that bad again?
If you are 25 years old, been in the military, and can't say (to Joe) "I'm bailing on this shit, I am like so fucking out of here." Then you are dangerous if left to run wild in the free world.
I confess, I emailed Preacher George, and asked him his thoughts on the case.
I was honest about my suspecting Harlow might be in this deeper than we would hope.
He said that he might not be able to make it to any of the trial.
But he was more interested in who I was than letting me in on any of his thoughts. In other words he stonewalled me.
Quicky,
Regarding first or second-
I am not sure how I feel-
He just came off as totally unrepentent-
I do not want him to die-
Maybe 25 years or so and then poss. if he admits and shows remorse-
He has done everything wrong-
I am sorry that he did do everything wrong.
Personally Quicky you and I seem to be on [close to] if not the same page regarding this case.
This kid needed to show some remorse-
He could not have come across worse-
For him that may possibly bring the worst case scenario verdict-
I hope not!
Jim you asked about clergy privelege exemption.
The case first arose in NYC in the late 1800's. The case at its core was a major felony. The suspect had confessed to a Catholic priest and in long detail. The suspect had asked for the sacrament of penance.
This matter became known to detectives. Those detectives asked the priest to voluntarily give his statement against the suspect. The priest refused and was arrested on obstruction of justice charges. The priest's case wound its way through the NY state court system. Eventually, it was heard on appeal by the US Supreme Court. The majority decided in favor of the priest, citing that, in essence, there is a bond of confidentiality extending to ministerial counseling of a rabbi, priest, or minister. This privilege is a limited one. For example, having a beer with a priest and posing a hypothetical is not going to be protected by privilege. Clearly, something more in the lines of a rabbincal, priestly, or ministerial function must be present: "Fr. O'Malley I need to talk to you about a matter that is troubling my conscience." Some statement similar to this one would kick in the privilege. The priest or rabbi or minister is being asked directly by the layman for help in the clergyman's established calling and role.
Short answer, if a prisoner is talking to his clergyman in that clergyman's calling, the privilege extends so no taping.
One more thing to clarify about Catholic priests and the sacrament of confession. What is told to the priest in confession remains between God, the priest (as mediator and dispenser of forgiveness) and the penitent; the priest cannot, and does not reveal, the penitent's confession under any circumstances. Priests have given their lives to protect the sanctity of the sacrament.
For ministers, not Catholic, it is my understanding that they feel that they are acting for God, not themselves. A respectable minister will not violate that trust.
V.J. said...
Quicky,
Regarding first or second-
I am not sure how I feel-
He just came off as totally unrepentent-
I do not want him to die-
Maybe 25 years or so and then poss. if he admits and shows remorse-
He has done everything wrong-
I am sorry that he did do everything wrong.
Personally Quicky you and I seem to be on [close to] if not the same page regarding this case.
----
I did not catch enough of Madame's letter, or what was read in that regard. Just the ass looks fat, and dark colors are no-no, is not all that bad.
I did not read or hear that the confession letters, or tapes of plans (B, C, or etc.) were read/played for the jury.
If they were played and were as bad as Madame says, then the Jury will be more brutal in verdict. But I did not hear the confession on the Renee tapes. In fact I did not hear anything as bad as she has said it there.
Anyway, V.J. I would agree that we are on the same page and would like Harlow to get every fair chance here. Behind bars for 30 or 40 years would be as bad as death.
>Behind bars for 30 or 40 years would be as bad as death.
It would be worse than death, which is why I've always been more partial to Life in prison without parole as a better punishment than death.
Since life expectancies for men now reaches into their 70s, for ease let's say 75, that would be 50 years for Harlow and 40 some for Joe. I think that's more than fair recompense for killing Kocis.
Whatever Kocis' faults, he didn't deserve to be killed. Whatever Harlow's merits, he doesn't deserve to walk in our world ever again.
I honestly can't imagine the jury recommending the DP once they have (and they will) find him guilty of murder one. It will be imo life w/o parole. Not that the brutality of this crime coupled with the arson of the home does not merit the DP. They will take until Friday mid afternoon to reach their verdict since so much is at stake here.
The reasons I feel this way about the DP are:
1) Harlow's age. I think by human nature it is just much more difficult for any jury to vote on death when you are in your 20's.
2)The lack of any other criminal history brought forward to reflect that this person is defective beyond any salvation.
3) His service to the country. In these times that will carry some (albeit little) weight in favor of Harlow.
And there is one other sentence that Harlow will be living with outside of the jury's recommendation every day of the remainder of his life. And that is the sentence of "Self".
Harlow will have to spend the rest of his life, every moment, every breath he takes living with the fact that his life is over and as the clock probably moves backwards many days in prison; live with the fact that he has destroyed not just one man's life but countless others because of his greed and lack of moral decency.
That is a sentence not I. or anyone else can truly fully appreciate or understand.
I think the death penalty is in order here and since Harlow has actually admitted being in the house he might actually get it.
He should have taken the plea.
Re Jody, life vs death, I agree with you. Whatever your beliefs, just about everyone hopes that you recycle someway or there is an afterlife with hope of redemption. Why start the process quicker?
Re Jim, is the interview posted. I understand the hesitancy, but it's either here or Hard Copy. :) She seems to have tired of holding back, maybe she'll tell it all now.
Quicky said
"I confess, I emailed Preacher George"
You are funny Quicky!!!
Preacher George is a NUTCASE though,
IMHO
It's here.
And honestly Zach, I'm through with believing anything she has to say at this point. Her latest story, to wit, that Harlow's lawyers didn't vet her until AFTER they sent her a subpoena, AFTER they flew her from Texas to Luzerne County, AFTER they got her a hotel, AFTER she arrived at the courthouse, and just BEFORE they wanted her on the stand...
...is so obviously unbelievable it simply cannot be taken seriously.
D'Andrea and Walker didn't just subpoena Joe, and hope for the best. They visited Joe, bought him a TV, and vetted him. Or, at least tried to vet him. :-)
Obviously, they did the same with Renee. Obviously, they vetted her BEFORE they decided to subpoena and fly her out her.
Obviously, Renee is lying to us. Again.
Now, you throw in the fact that the person who came on here and tried to rehabilitate her image after her criminal history was revealed was "Sassy," the lead private investigator for the Harlow defense, and well, there you have it.
One thing you have to keep in mind about Renee...like all good con artists, she knows the key to getting people to believe her is to tell them what they want to hear. So, when you hear her saying stuff against Harlow now, she is simply reading her crowd, trying to weasel her way back into their trust.
Seems to me, her current "game" is to try to inflate her value in the post-murder media and literary market, at the expense of others. PC hinted earlier she is in some sort of financial distress (due to all the civil suits against her, I take it), so, I gather this is what's primarily motivating her nowadays.
This would explain a great many of her antics of late...the leaking of the 6-page letter to the Times Leader to hype her testimony the next day, wild claims of unpublished (and undoubtably forged) emails, etc...
So anyways, she's free to find a forum, and say anything she wants to at this point. And we're all free to take in the above, and not to trust a word ot it.
BTW I have a good Update 10 to the previous post, and I'm working on an Update 11.
Jim, since inquiring minds want to know, I just asked Madame to explain why they flew her to PA on John Roecker's dime without vetting her testimony.
Yeah, and she'll just say "ask D'Andrea" or some such.
Her 15 minutes are up. In fact, she got 30 minutes on the stand, so, IMO she owes us 15 minutes.
Hold on a minute Jim. My information regarding Renee was verified early on in the case before much of the ensuing drama occurred. I also know some of the early dealings and what went on between her, Harlow and Joe. I was not trying to "rehabilitate her image" simply pointing out that not everything that was being posted was fact. Also, I was trying to let people know that no matter what it appears like to bloggers based on news articles and opinions, there is still an unknown layer of information and people should keep that in mind before making someone out to be a total villian in this. Her discussion and interviews with all of you bloggers was on her own and she can/should be held accountable for what she said/did. But her civil suits do not make her the worst person in the world. I am sure if she had her "druthers" she would not be in court for either side.
Update 11 now complete, on the post below. And that should be a wrap on the Trial Musings.
". . . not everything that was being posted was fact. "
So she doesn't abuse a magic broom?
Well, based on that last jury question, I've just finished my next post.
It's currently saved in draft form; all I have to do now is manuever my mouse over the Send button, and with a twitch of my index finger it'll be published.
Jim states, "Obviously, Renee is lying to us. Again.
Now, you throw in the fact that the person who came on here and tried to rehabilitate her image after her criminal history was revealed was "Sassy," the lead private investigator for the Harlow defense, and well, there you have it."
This is the wisest observation regarding two of the players surrounding Harlow and Joe. The other one is Elm. Elm is not a whack job by nearly half. Let's remember he was the self-proclaimed clearinghouse of information on this murder and the conduit of many of the trial balloon alibis that were being floated.
The biggest hole in Elm's life boat is Melnick's asking Harlow on the witness stand whether or not Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart had anything to do with Bryan Kocis' death. Harlow's answer, "No," sinks that life boat.
In the face of very reasoned discussion of the CCT's and BBT's by Jim and others, each one of those trial balloon alibis burst and fell limply to the ground. Yet, Elm persisted in trying to spin a different story regarding Harlow's and Joe's innocence. Elm proclaimed that both suspects should "Stand tall, proud and erect" while facing their accusers in court. Elm is now stuck in claiming the L Cty judiciary is corrupt, therefore, law enforcement and the court sytem conspired to railroad Harlow and Joe. Aside, from an approximate 7 individuals caught on another matter, none of this impacted the Harlow murder trial in the least. Nor should it have.
The last Elm floated trial balloon alibi was Harlow arrived to find Kocis' dead body and fled the scene. Harlow's testimony blows that theory to Kingdom Come.
Grant has posted here, paraphrased, that regardless of what Elm spouts, there is no truth to it whatsoever.
The one fact remains, Elm allowed himself to be duped by Renee Martin, who is still grifting, and Harlow and Joe themselves, both of whom Elm admits fed him information at various times.
Sassy writes, "But [Martin's] civil suits do not make her the worst person in the world. I am sure if she had her "druthers" she would not be in court for either side."
That is not entirely true because Jim here found not only numerous civil suits, but also criminal cases in which Martin was involved.
I pointed out what PC had posted in Martin's bail bond affidavit when he introduced her. Martin was no angel, no witness giving statements of a good citizen. Bluntly, her testimony was compelled. Bail was imposed.
Martin's statements, two of them, at PC's blog just last night have a most hollow ring. One fact remains, Martin painted herself in those two statements as a conartist.
If the jokers on Harlow's side of this murder had exculpatory evidence to help their defense, they had a duty to present it. What was presented? Half-assed alibi after alibi in the misguided belief that bloggers would buy those without proof.
********GUILTY*********
You can press that button Jim.
Pressed!
Re Elm "he was the self-proclaimed clearinghouse of information on this murder and the conduit of many of the trial balloon alibis...and Jim's comments re Rene:
I've read a lot of this stuff, interesting blog, but it's a puzzle of identities.
Had not read that about Sassy.
Elm, the conduit makes sense to explain the reverse flips I've read;
Rene/Madame, to me I just wanted to hear what's she got to say; she was to be a witness, and so far, she's the only one talking that knows any of the ins and outs at trial re her appearance.
The defense vetted Joe, they certainy would have met with him, and he turned.
Same thing happen with Marie? she says not. But think about it, that would mean the defense was sandbagged twice. Say what you want of the defense, they had a really hard row to hoe, and not of their own making, in my opinion. They certainly wanted to put on a good case, u always do; I don't see them as lazy or stupid. I just think they were boxed by the facts, lack of money for experts, etc. And clearly Harlow didn't take their advice either.
And regardless of Joe's turning, it was worth spades just for the jury to see his thuggish countenance, he's scary looking. :)
True or not, Rene's worth hearing, to me; we all judge the credibility of each of the people.
Re her past background, to me it doesn't negate any chance she's telling the truth, but it is a consideration to weigh. So her background in the court system is to be considered, but I don't think it's that big of a deal; I did however want to understand how she moved from being such a close friend and supporter to one whose eagerness for the death penalty seems rapacious.
So having lacked a crib sheet for the true identities of the posters here and at pc's, and having learned re above, and gorgeous, a self-described 22 year old twink in the adult industry since the age of 7 (15 years), I will throw my own in.
I'm old as dirt, don't know anybody here or associated with the trial, had no impressions before reading your blog on the merits of either side, just a true voyeur in this crime saga.
I'm out of touch obviously, but it's hard to believe that a young kid would by his late 20s use murder as a means to obtain market share.
End of story.
Post a Comment