Sunday, July 15, 2007

Let's start taking an honest look at the affidavit... Part 3

Let's buy a knife and gun... right after renting the SUV... ( Page 18/Paragraph 1 ):

"Further investigation by the Pennsylvania State Police in conjunction with the Virginia Beach Police Department revealed that on 01/23/07 at approx 0944 hrs., accused Cuadra along with accused Kerekes entered the "Superior Pawn and Gun Shop", Virginia Beach Blvd., Virginia Beach, Va., and purchased a "Sigarms" model # FX1SG, lock blade folding knife with 30% serrated edge. Cuadra additionally purchased a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver and ammunition, utilizing a Visa credit card issued to Harlow Cuadra. Both Cuadra and Kerekes were observed on surveillance video at said location purchasing the knife as well as ammunition for the firearm. Kerekes was observed exiting said location carrying a handgun case containing aforementioned firearm. Subsequent to that observation, a similar knife was purchased by Cpl. Hannon with the identical model number for the identical price. Said knife was shown to Forensic Pathologist Doctor Gary Ross, who was consulted regarding this investigation and the injuries suffered"

Here's a map from the rental car location to the pawn shop with approx driving time ( trust me, I live in the area, and even on a good day you wouldn't be able to go from one to the other in less than 5 minutes ):

A few observations of note:

* The driving time would conflict with the time Cuadra was renting the SUV, to when Cuadra and Kerekes were at the pawn/gun shop. Harlow rented the SUV at approx 0945 hrs... yet he was at the pawn/gun shop at 0944 hrs. Something doesn't make sense... as both locations are an easy 5-10 minute drive apart from each other.
* Times listed within the affidavit are approx. - so guess we'll have to see if a real time can be had.
* There is proof of Harlow being at both locations on the same day. Perhaps this is another timing blunder? It's also not unusual for different businesses to have different times. ( I have 7 clocks in my house and I don't think any of them are accurate to the exact minute ).
* Is the knife found at the scene of the crime the same make and model? If so... that would be interesting... though again circumstantial, unless they're able to pull DNA, which I doubt due to the fire, but then again you never know as forensics has come a long way.

Let's take a break from working-out ( Page 18/Paragraph 2 ):

"On 02/23/07, investigators traveled to the "Big House Gym" Virginia Beach Blvd., Virginia Beach, Va., and interviewed the owner, one Lance Paul Treadway. Treadway stated that he purchased said gym in March of 2006. Both Cuadra and Kerekes had been members prior to the purchase. Treadway added that both Cuadra and Kerekes always worked out together, to which both possess a "swipe card" which allows entry to the facility. Swipe card read outs were requested for both January and February. The most dated reading available was 01/23/07, as there is a thrity day rentention period only. Both Cuadra and Kerekes were absent, which was unusual to Treadway, on 01/23/24,25/07, however were present every day the remainder of the month, along with every day from 02/01 through 02/09/07. There were no accesses following 02/09/07. It should be noted that the date of search warrant at the residence of both Cuadra and Kerekes was 02/10/07"

Observation of note:

* Though the timing is odd... in itself it's nothing but circumstantial evidence at most... though it is rather suspect if you add it to the rest thus far.

Let the hate mail begin ( Page 18 continued to 19/Paragraphs 3-8 ):

"Subsequent to further investigation, the following email exchanges were obtained by investigators with the Pennsylvania State Police;
On 03/03/07, at a time registered at 1014 am, the following message was forwarded via "" to Grant Roy; "hey grant its harlow so when we gonna start filming? U know we had an agreement Joe"
On 03/03/07 at a time registered at 1015 am, the following message was also forwarded via "" to Grant Roy; "you need to make some kind of contact with us before I tell them you hired us joe"
On 03/03/07 at a time registered at 1017 am, the following message was also forwarded via "" to Grant Roy; "and we all know what u said to us at the avn in vegas and we have it on tape recorder and out conversation a le Cirque is recorded as well dont fuck with us"
"On 03/03/07 at a time registered at 1043 am, the following message was also forwarded via "" to Grant Roy; "we are going to visit san diego this week or next and we need to meet we hope to see u soon"

A few observations of note:

* Why are there no IP addresses listed for these posts?
* Why would the first message start out saying it's Harlow... only to be signed by Joe?
* These emails could 'sound like' another possible admission of association, as there's an obvious strong-arm tone to it. I'm also willing to bet that there is no recording by Joe/Harlow in regards to the AVN/Le Cirque get-togethers. Sounds more like a strong-arm tactic from Joe to get the other party to comply with his wishes.

Informant #2 ( Page 19/Paragraph 2 ):

"On 03/21/07, investigators from the Pennsylvania State Police and Virginia Beach Police Department interviewed Confidential Informant #2. Said informant has been proven reliable in that information relayed to Cpl. Hannon has been independently corroborated through means not associated with said informant. Said informant has been associated with both Cuadra and Kerekes since approx April of 2005. Informant #2 illustrated, as did informant #1, the male escort and homosexual pornography business of both Cuadra and Kerekes. Additionally, informant #2 advised that both Cuadra and Kerekes were at "the avn" awards within the past several months, and returned to advise that they planned a collaboration with "Brent Corrigan", which could potentially make a very large sum of money. Both additionally stated that there was some type of contractual problem with Corrigan, however a "verbal agreement" was made pursuant to the meeting."

A few observation of importance:

* Once again this will be considered as heresay... though it will likely be heard by the jury. If informant #1 & #2 testify at trial, I can assure you the defense will try to make them look as unreliable as possible. Guess it will be up to the jury to decide.
* Second mention of 'striking it rich'... going back to the money issue as being a possible motive.

... more tomorrow...