Harlow Cuadra Online

The continuation of Harlow and Joe’s Preliminary Hearing convened at 1:05 PM on Thursday, August 23, 2007.

First on the witness stand yesterday was Grant Roy of San Diego, CA. The majority of Grant’s testimony centered on a conversation between himself, Peter Pan, Harlow and Joe, that occurred on Saturday, April 28, 2007. This conversation took place at Black Beach, which is a nude beach near La Jolla. According to Grant, both Harlow and Joe spoke openly of the meeting with and murder of Bryan Kocis… even stating that Harlow brought up the subject. Grant claims Harlow described sharing a bottle of wine with Bryan. He went on to testify that Harlow described items in the house, including a plasma television, expensive stereo equipment, and model contracts and release forms that were waiting for him. Grant also testified that Harlow went on to say that the doorbell rang and that when Bryan went to answer it, he was stumbling from the wine he had drunk. Grant then explained that Harlow made the comment “that was it”. Grant also stated that Harlow made the comments that it “went really quick” and that Bryan “never saw it coming”. Grant also went on to say that Harlow described an upstairs bedroom were Peter Pan had stayed as well as Bryan’s Rolex.

Grant went on to explain that when asked what they did with the stolen property, both Harlow and Joe stated they had watched the master tapes and then incinerated everything because it was “too hot”.

Under cross examination, Grant explained that while there were other people present at Black Beach, there was no one else in earshot during this conversation. He also stated that the conversation had been recorded and that he had been cooperating with the authorities. Grant was asked if he thought it was unusual to be speaking about the homicide, and responded, “No its not”. When asked if Harlow stated, “I killed Bryan,” Grant replied “No”. When asked if Harlow said, “I started the fire” he again replied “No”. Grant also admitted that he did not ask Harlow and Joe why they came to Pennsylvania, how they got to Pennsylvania, what times the conversation and murder occurred, how long they stayed in Pennsylvania, why they took the items, or how and when the items were destroyed. He also stated he had no advance knowledge of Harlow and Joe’s plan to go to Pennsylvania and that he had never been to Bryan’s house.

He also stated that he had reviewed the tape and the transcripts at the State Trooper’s bar-racks before his testimony. Despite the defense attorneys’ best efforts, the Judge did not permit for the tape to be played during the hearing.

Grant spent a total of one hour and 13 minutes on the stand.

The next witness was Trooper Brian Murphy, who has 13 years experience with the Pennsyl-vania State Police. He was asked to read his qualifications into record. Trooper Murphy stated that he had visited the crime scene. He advised that a laptop computer was found in the living room, computer towers were found in the basement, and multiple external storage devises were found in the dining room, where it was apparent that other computer towers had been present. At the prosecutions request, he defined what an I.P. address is and what a Webmaster is.

Trooper Murphy explained that Bryan’s Webmaster forwarded copies of model applications, photos, and e-mails to the police. He also explained that e-mail records were obtained from both AOL and Yahoo!

The court was shown copies of two model applications in the name “Danny Moilin”. Several of the attached photos were shown, as well as most of the e-mails collected that showed com-munication between Bryan and “Danny”. He testified that the Danny Moilin account on Yahoo! was set up by someone using an I.P. address assigned to Harlow’s Cox Communications account. He also went on to testify that many of them also came from a computer connected to an air card that was registered to Harlow. He also testified that the “Danny Moilin” account was only active for a few days. There were a total of about “3 dozen e-mails” most of which were shown in court.

During cross examination, Trooper Murphy did state that there was no way to tell where the computer using the mobile air card was physically located, since the cell tower information is not retained by the service provider. He also indicated that there is no way he can tell who was actually using the computer when the e-mails were sent. He also was unable to testify who set up the account with Yahoo! since it is a free account and also had no way of knowing who knew of the account and its password. Trooper Murphy also testified that to the best of his knowledge, none of the items reported as missing from Bryan’s home were seized during the raid on Harlow and Joe’s home. Trooper Murphy provided login records from Yahoo! that show that two different e-mail accounts were logged into from Harlow’s mobile air card at the time of the homicide. He indicated that e-mails might have been sent from the computer, but that he did not have the relevant records with him at court.

Trooper Murphy stepped down at 4:53 PM.

The next and final witness of the day was Corporal Leo Hannon of the Pennsylvania State Po-lice. He gave testimony that a “box cell phone” or “throw away cell phone” was purchased. The first call from this phone was connected via a cell tower in Virginia Beach. A map was displayed showing the all the cell towers that the phone had connected with. He testified that these towers roughly followed the I-64/I-95 route to Wilkes Barre from Virginia Beach. There were a total of three cell towers in the Wyoming valley that the phone connected to.

Corporal Hannon also testified to the fact that Harlow rented a car from Enterprise in Virginia Beach. A copy of the contract was shown. He also had a tape played recorded at Superior Pawn & Gun shop in Virginia Beach that showed Harlow and Joe buying a gun, ammunition, range membership, and a knife the day before the homicide. Corporal Hannon also testified to the registration card from the Fox Ridge Inn that was shown in court on Monday.

He testified that the theft charges against Harlow and Joe were solely based upon the tape that Grant Roy had testified about.

Corporal Hannon stated that the rental car was not searched until about a month after the homicide. He was also present at the February 10, 2007 raid on Harlow and Joe’s home. He stated that cameras and camera equipment was seized during the raid and that two of the cameras were of the exact same model as those listed as missing from Bryan’s house. He testified that the serial numbers on these cameras were “obliterated”. When asked to clarify this term, he said, “forcibly removed.” He also stated that for the purposes of the investigation, “Danny Moilin” does not exist. He went on to testify that when first speaking with Grant Roy about the taped conversation, Grant was able to provide “non-public information” that he claimed to have received from Harlow and Joe.

Under cross-examination, Corporal Hannon admitted there was no proof of who purchased the box phone. He also admitted there was no way to tell when the serial numbers were removed from the cameras. He did testify that samples were “seized” from the rental vehicle. He also stated that no false information was given on the car rental application or on any of the required fire arms paperwork filled out at the gun shop. He went on to state that there was no evidence that Harlow was trying to hide who he was and that he used his own credit card.

Corporal Hannon stepped down from the stand at 6:42 PM.

Closing arguments were given between 6:54 PM and approximately 7:25 PM. Both sets of defense attorneys went through each individual charge and gave their legal opinions why and how the state had not met the burden of proof for each.

The prosecutor then gave his closing argument explaining how the state had proved their case.

Judge Tupper rendered his verdict at 7:26 PM. He bound over all charges on both defendants for trial, with the exception of Burglary and Conspiracy to Commit Burglary.

While yesterday’s testimony and evidence was much less favorable to Harlow and Joe, the good news is the dropping of the two charges each. The defense attorneys made it quite clear that there is a long road ahead and that the hearing had gone much as they expected. Both Harlow and Joe were very active in assisting their attorneys during both days of the hearing.

The next big event in this case will be the Arraignment in front of an Upper Court Judge, which has not yet been scheduled and will probably be a few months down the road.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 24th, 2007 at 4:03 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.