Black helicopters

Black helicopters
It's The Black Helicopters Bitches

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

At last the trial: part two

Cuadra's jury trial before Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. began Tuesday. Prosecutors called four witnesses this morning in the capital case against Cuadra, 27, who could face the death penalty if found guilty of first-degree homicide in Kocis’ 2007 death. Prosecutors allege Cuadra killed Kocis, a rival producer of gay pornography, to further his own gay pornography business. Assistant district attorneys Michael Melnick, Shannon Crake and Allyson Kacmanski are trying to convince the jury that Danny Moilin is Cuadra.

Prosecutors continue to build their case against Harlow Cuadra, alleging the 27-year old fabricated two applications under another name, and purchased personal information on rival pornographic movie producer Bryan Kocis. Todays witness included Justin Hensley, Alex Puente, Jennifer Marie Ortega, Deborah Crane, Attorney Sean Ernesto Macias, Karen Vuaxon, Virginia Beach Police Officer, Gavin Pinchback, Chris Hurd

Two other witness testified this morning, a Virginia Beach Police Officer who testified about seeing the rental car at Cuadra's place, and Karen Vuaxon, who works for AOL and testified about records pertaining to Kocis' site.

Jennifer Marie Ortega, a representative from USA People Search based in Sacramento, Calif., testified that someone using a Discover credit card registered to Cuadra purchased personal information on Kocis on Jan. 20, 2007. The information, Ortega said, contained Kocis' address, telephone number and neighbors information and other facts about the Dallas Township man, the witness testified this morning. Jennifer Ortega, said Cuadra purchased the "comprehensive background report on Kocis four days before Kocis was killed,

The murder victim Bryan Kocis owned Cobra Video.

Alex Puente, of Miami, Fla., who was the Web master of Cobra Video’s online site, testified Tuesday that days before his death Kocis received two e-mails to the Cobra site from a man named Danny Moilin, who wanted to audition as an actor for Kocis. Alexander Puente also testified that Cobra Video - Kocis' production company - received two model applications from Danny Moilin on Jan. 22, 2007. Puente said the application was completed from the same computer, in which, Assistant District Attorney Michael Melnick alleged was Cuadra's computer. Danny Moilin was the name that Harlow used to see Bryan. He sent the application to Cobra under that name and the Cobra Webmaster confirmed this. The five photos attached with the e-mail were shown to jurors and looked similar to Cuadra.

Upon questioning by Cuadra's lawyers, Joseph D'Andrea and Paul Walker, Puente said he wouldn't know who actually submitted the applications.

Sean Macias was the sixth witness to testify for prosecutors on day two of Cuadra's capital murder trial before Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski. Attorney Sean Ernesto Macias, of Los Angeles, Calif. took the stand today and said that he was on the phone with the victim when the "model" arrived. He testified that he was speaking with Kocis on Jan. 24, 2007, when Kocis put the phone down and answered his door."He seemed to be in a good mood," Macias said from the witness stand. "My conversation was brief with him; he said he was expecting a guest that day, a model or something."He went to answer the door, it sounded like he put the phone down and said Hello, the name started with a D," Macias said.

According to the Times Leader, Bryan Kocis was on the telephone speaking with his attorney when investigators suspect Harlow Cuadra arrived at his Dallas Township home. Macias represented Kocis in a federal civil suit filed against Cobra Video contract model, Sean Lockhart, and Lockhart's business agent, Grant Roy, a director of pornographic films. Macias said the suit, which alleged Lockhart violated the copyrighted name of Brent Corrigan, was settled sometime in January 2007.

Justin Hensley said he started working for Cuadra in April 2005 because he was very poor. When he worked for them Hensley said "Cuadra and Kerekes earned $225 per hour and up to $10,000 a week in their escort business in Virginia Beach". Hensley said "clients to the escort business was a U.S. Senator, government contractors working for the U.S. Military and physicians". He testified that while he was working as a male escort for Cuadra and Kerekes they wouldn’t let him leave their home for long.

Justin Hensley said he resided with Cuadra and Kerekes because they wanted him to be available at all times for potential clients. Hensley who is now engaged to a female said he left the home of Cuadra and Kerekes because they "wanted me to stay there and work all the time and not have a social life. I was only "allowed" to leave on the weekends and if I went out to get a sandwich, I had to come right back." "I could only leave for a short lunch.

Hensley said he was aware that Cuadra met Lockhart, known in the industry as Brent Corrigan, at an adult video news award ceremony in Las Vegas, Nev., in mid-January. Hensley said Cuadra and Kerekes wanted to make more money so they expanded into pornographic films. Hensley also testified that he knew they wanted to film movies with Sean Lockhart, an actor in gay pornographic films. "They would definately profit a lot of money," Hensely said if Cuadra and Lockhart produced films. "The only statements that I heard Cuadra say was Cobra Video is a main rival," Hensley said. Hensley’s testimony detailed Cuadra’s role in his companies, as an actor and producer of pornography as well as a prostitute, but he also presented Kerekes, 35, as aggressive and the more dominant of the two men.

During cross-examination from defense attorney Joseph D’Andrea, Hensley said Kerekes fired a gun inside the house where he lived with Cuadra. "I’m pretty sure he wanted to shoot Harlow," Hensley said, because of a fight between them. Hensley, who lived with the two men at their pornography and prostituting hub, moved out because of the incident and has enlisted in the military, serving two tours in Iraq.

Deborah Crane, an employee at Superior Pawn Shops in Virginia Beach, testified Cuadra and Kerekes purchased a handgun and a knife from the shop on Jan. 23, 2007. Melnick showed to the jury a surveillance video from the pawn shop illustrating Cuadra and Kerekes purchasing the items. "I can’t tell what (Kerekes) pulled from his pocket from this angle," pawn shop manager Deborah Crain said during cross-examination. "(Cuadra’s) credit card was used … he signed it."

So far from what I am seeing is that the defense is placing all of the blame on Joe Kerekes. But from the testimony of two witnesses I can see that the same thing is starting be proven. I had an issue with Joe where I saw how he can get angry. So I can understand Justin and Harlow's fear of Joe. I do have a question about Macias's testimony though. from the affidavit it show's that Macias had three different phone calls to Bryan. I listed a list of times below with what the prosecution has said was going on. based on the times listed there seems to be some inconsistancies.

All times below are EST and taken from the affidavit of probable cause.

2:23 PM Bryan sends a email to sean( email about meeting Danny with out pictures

4:02 PM Harlow logs into his email account

4:45 PM harlow sends email

5:03 PM Harlow sends email to mitchell

5:31 PM Danny Moilin logs on

5:35 PM Sean Macias talks to Bryan: the first call.

6:00 PM Sean Macias talks to Bryan: the second call: Macias advised that on the night of 1/24/2007 he was on the phone with the victim regarding the pending lawsuit as well as several items of issue regarding the members of LSG Media. Macias decribed the the Demaeanor of the victim at the time as "upbeat" and "in a good mood". the victim advised Macias that a "new Model" was coming over(to the victims residence). Macias added that at some point, the victim asked Macias to "hold on", as the model who had a name which began with a "D" arrived. Macias could not hear the entire name of the model. Subsequent to the model's arrival the victim's phone call with Macias concluded. Phone records obtained subsequent to this investigation illustrate that the victim did engage in telephone conversation(s) with Macias between the hours of approx 1735 and 1800 hrs' and at approx 1950 hrs EST on 1/24/2007

6:11 PM dmbottompa logs on

6:27 PM stareyes emails sales @*******.net

6:29 PM stareyes emails sales @*******.net

6:30 PM Aaron / Robert Wagner talks to Bryan. Did this call interupt Bryans call with Macias? Is this call the reason that Bryan asked Macias to hold on?

6:45 PM Harlow sends email Bryan: If Harlow was at Bryan's house why would he email Bryan?

6:51 PM Harlow logs into his email account

7:50 PM Sean Macias talks to Bryan the third call: this is the last time that we know that Bryan was alive, who called who: I would guess if Macias was talking to Bryan that I is assumed that he was still alive.

8:20 PM silver or white suv seen leaving the residence of the victim: Amy saw the car leave the Kocis residence but there was no sign of a fire.

8:34 PM fire department called and arrive in a few minutes. Amy also testifies that the fire department knocked on the door of the house and informed them that the house next door was on fire.

8:36 PM Email sent to wade @ hotmail .com

8:51 PM Harlow logs into his email account

9:13 PM Email sent from stareyes to sales@………net.

9:33 PM Harlow logs on as Danny Bottom email account

9:42 PM Harlow sends email to txbo…

11:09 PM Harlow logs into his email account


  1. Elm we had this discussion on Macias call before, as I recall. Just to remind everyone...I think you're wrong. There were not three calls that day, only one.

    Reasoning: the affidavit refers to it as a "conversation." SINGULAR, not plural.

    So, here's my call timeline:

    5:35pm: Macias calls Bryan
    6:00pm: Robert Wagner calls Bryan (note: RW says "approx." 6:30 in the affidavit...and 6:00 is clearly approximate to 6:30). Macias is briefly put on call waiting. Bryan talks quickly with RW, ending the call within a minute.
    6:00pm: Bryan resumes call with Macias, taking him off hold
    7:50pm: Bryan and Macias end call.

    See Elm? This is how you get a "coversation," singular, out of all these times mentioned in the affidavit.

    And notice how it makes PERFECT sense. When Hannon examined Bryan's phone records, he sees Bryan's last call as between 6:00pm and 7:50pm. The phone record would log the call beginning at 6:00, when he disconnected with RW.

    HOWEVER, when Hannon looks at Macias' phone records, he gets a different story: A single call from between 5:35pm and 7:50pm. See how call waiting will naturally lead to such discrepancies? Call waiting to Bryan will interrupt has call, and be reflected on his bill as such, BUT NOT Macias'. He was, as far as the phone company is concerned, on the line continuously with Bryan from 5:35 to 7:50pm.

    Again Elm, it was ONE phone call, with ONE call waiting interruption at 6:00pm.

  2. Jim if you look at the last sentence it states
    Phone records obtained subsequent to this investigation illustrate that the victim did engage in telephone conversation(s) with Macias between the hours of approx 1735 and 1800 hrs' and at approx 1950 hrs EST on 1/24/2007.

    Now actually the grammer is incorrect. if it were one conversation there should be (a) in the sentence but there is not.

    Phone records obtained subsequent to this investigation illustrate that the victim did engage in (a)telephone conversation with Macias between the hours of approx 1735 and 1800 hrs' and at approx 1950 hrs EST on 1/24/2007

    This is the version you want to believe which is fine. It does not work for your argument. You yourself have stated on PC's blog
    jim said...
    ""My conversation was brief with him;..."

    Brief? The phone records in the affidavit has Macias call clocked at over two hours in duration! 17:35 to 19:50 EST.

    Although maybe he's a gabby sort, and that's "brief" to him?

    Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:14:00 PM

    The fact is Macias said in his testimony that he had a brief conversation with the victim(Bryan).You questioning his definition of brief is quite telling. Maybe in the back of your mind you think I might just be right. Could there be a typo on the affidavit? They either forgot to put a (a) or a (s) in that sentence. I am thinking it is a (s) based on the three differnet times listed.

  3. No Elm, even without the "a" it's still grammatically correct.

    Example: Jim engaged Elm in online conversation on Elm's blog today.

    That is a grammatically correct sentence. Conversation is one of those funny nouns that don't necessarily need an "a" in front all the time.

    So, the lack of an (s) is no typo IMO.

  4. And yes you are right about three times being listed...but if you factor in RW's call waiting interruption, the three times get explained away very nicely.

    Also, this call was Macias, Bergeron, maybe Bergeron's atty too, and Bryan. Plotting a good backdoor deal is time consuming, hence the one long coference call is very plausible here.

  5. This phone call would all be billed as hours of service rendered to the client. Assuming Macias has partners, he would not be able to conceal it without cheating them. Look at his billable hours log.

  6. To a lawyer with billable hours maybe a two hour call WAS BRIEF! ;)