Cobra Killer (30 page)

The hunt for trace evidence

Popular TV shows such as
CSI, Law and Order
and
Forensic Files
have increased awareness and understanding of the value of trace or DNA evidence in solving crimes. It is, as forensic-science pioneer Edmond Locard (1877-1966) put it, because trace or DNA evidence “is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent.”
⁽⁵⁹⁾

In the murder of Bryan Kocis, the hope for trace or DNA evidence was soon dashed. “Obviously, DNA evidence was impossible,” said Michael Melnick. “The DNA was just gone. The place was incinerated where the victim was. It was completely incinerated.”
⁽⁶⁰⁾

Police also sought trace evidence from the Nissan Xterra, the rental SUV used by Cuadra and Kerekes to travel to and from Virginia to Pennsylvania. A small patch of carpeting from the vehicle was subsequently cut out and sent for testing, but no conclusive link could be made between the vehicle and Kocis or Cuadra and Kerekes. And although spotted by Virginia detectives in the Stratem Court driveway the day
after
Kocis was killed, the SUV “was rented two or three times until we got to it. We believe Harlow entered the building with an overnight bag, our working assumption was that he had a change of clothes, he probably had a garbage bag, and once he slew Bryan Kocis, everything went into the bag and that was gone,” Melnick said.
⁽⁶¹⁾

The bag, if ever recovered, would have been a treasure-trove of evidence. What’s more, Kerekes told investigators in December 2008, as part of his plea agreement, that the bag had not been thrown away or discarded, Melnick said.

It would never be recovered, however.

That it was never found was more attributable to bad luck and bad timing, rather than for any lack of dogged determination by Pennsylvania detectives. Almost two years after the murder, detectives still went looking for that bag. “When we debriefed Kerekes in December 2008 (for his guilty plea), Kerekes said they did not throw away the bag. Detective Steve Polishan asked him, ‘What happened to the bag?’…(and) Kerekes said, ‘When we went out (to California) in April 2007, we accidentally left the bag at the hotel.’”
⁽⁶²⁾

Melnick said detectives were jubilant. “We couldn’t believe he was telling us this. The Pennsylvania State Police immediately launched into an investigation in December 2008 and they called that hotel …and believe it or not, the hotel actually had a record of a bag being left in the room. But they had thrown it out after no one claimed it.”
⁽⁶³⁾

A circumstantial mountain becomes substantial

It’s said that proof of guilt by circumstantial evidence resides in the proof of the facts from which guilt is inferred, or that guilt is the conclusion reached after reviewing all of the circumstantial evidence laid out, to the exclusion of all other causes.

In the case of Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes, the State of Pennsylvania was more than able to build a mountain of circumstantial evidence against the two. They had to as direct evidence was in short supply. But they succeeded in going the extra step that circumstantial evidence requires; proving those facts beyond the exclusion of all else.

When stacked up together, an overwhelming conclusion of guilt begins to build:

• Rental car records from Virginia Beach showing not only did Cuadra rent an SUV matching the description of witnesses in Pennsylvania, but returning it with mileage consistent with a quick round-trip to the murder scene.
  
• Two cell phones “hitting off” cell towers near the victim’s home, both phones of which were registered to Kerekes.
  
• Pre-paid cell phone records (purchased in Virginia Beach) showing it was only ever used to call the victim’s Pennsylvania home.
  
• Credit records showing Cuadra purchased an online background check on the victim just prior to the murder.
  
• A free Yahoo e-mail account set up in the days prior to the murder, and only ever used by someone at Cuadra and Kerekes’ home and motel room to communicate with the victim.
  
• Superior Pawn Shop videotape showing Cuadra and Kerekes purchasing a gun and knife in the days and hours leading up to the murder.
  
• Statements from the victim’s lawyer, Sean Macias, and his friend Robert Wagner that he was expecting a new potential model to visit his home on the night he was found murdered.
  
• A cash-paid registration from Kerekes at a low-grade Wilkes-Barre motel during the window of when the victim was slain.
  
• The absence of Cuadra and Kerekes from their normal routine, namely, missing from the Big House Gym in Virginia Beach for the period of January 23 to 25, 2007.
  
• Inexact statements on the part of both men, first denying they were ever in Pennsylvania, then admitting they went to Pennsylvania for a modeling audition and a middle-of-the-winter camping trip.
  
• Three eyewitness statements from the victim’s neighbor that a silver SUV matching the description of the one rented by Cuadra was seen leaving the scene moments before flames were noticed pouring from the home.
  
• A similar silver/gray Nissan Xterra SUV confirmed parked in the driveway of Cuadra and Kerekes’ home the morning after the murder. A routine license plate check of the vehicle by Virginia Beach authorities (at that point unaware of the murder in Pennsylvania) showed the vehicle as registered to Enterprise Leasing Company and had been rented by Cuadra.
  
• Credit and background reports on both defendants showing a choking amount of debt about to overwhelm them.
  
• Statements from former employees of the duo saying they were concerned about the victim’s business prowess and his control of the modeling fortunes of Sean Lockhart.
  
• Statement from Grant Roy in California that the two defendants were casually describing the interior layout of the victim’s home, a home they later would deny ever having entered.
  
• Clandestine recordings from both the Crab Catcher Restaurant and Black’s Beach in San Diego, California where Cuadra and Kerekes made incriminating statements. These included indicating where the victim’s body was found in the living room, that the victim had consumed alcohol just prior to his death, and that his watch was missing, facts never released publicly.
  
• Property of the victim, namely two cameras with the serial numbers rubbed off, found in the possession of the defendants (and online inquiries made by Cuadra in the days after the murder about how to operate the cameras).
  
• Post-arrest letters sent by Cuadra to at least three former escort clients asking for their help in constructing an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder.
  
• Audio tape recordings of the defendants in three-way calls with their friend Renee Martin, trying to develop secondary alibi scenarios as their first stories began to melt in the light of new evidence.
  
• Police statements that Cuadra blurted out “I remember this, it’s a long tunnel” as he was extradited north via the Pennsylvania Turnpike, rendering impotent his initial claims that he was never in the state.
  
• Purchase of a second knife, identical to the one used in the murder and identical to the one originally purchased in Virginia to throw off investigators.
  ⁽⁶⁴⁾
  

The Commonwealth vs. Kerekes and Cuadra

“I’m sorry.”

—Joseph Kerekes to Bryan Kocis’ family

“I sit back now and think about the things that I did to make a living and I agree, I could (have) found a better profession, but at the time, I was not thinking about that…Sometimes we just need time to reflect on the things we have done.”

—Harlow Cuadra

A guilty plea

On December 8, 2008, Joseph Kerekes confirmed swirling speculation and walked shackled into the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas and pleaded guilty to his role in the murder of Bryan Kocis. He pleaded guilty to five total charges, including a charge of second degree murder, criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, theft, tampering with physical evidence, and criminal conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence. Six other counts were dismissed, including abuse of a corpse, criminal conspiracy to commit arson, robbery while inflicting serious bodily injury, arson resulting in death or serious injury, arson of a building, and criminal conspiracy to commit murder.

Judge Olszewski accepted the plea agreement that allowed Kerekes to escape any possible death penalty but required he accept a life sentence without the possibility of parole on the charge of second degree murder. On the other charges Kerekes was pleading guilty to, Olszewski sentenced him to another fifty-six months “beyond life” for conspiracy to commit robbery on Kocis, unlawful theft, tampering with physical evidence, and conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence. He ordered him to pay more than $2,500 to the Kocis family to cover funeral costs and for a $250 deductible on Bryan Kocis homeowners’ insurance policy. Those fees would be deducted from jail salaries Kerekes may earn while incarcerated.

Although he faced life in prison without the possibility of parole, Kerekes’ long and ultimately futile effort to flee justice was finally over. The journey would continue for Harlow Cuadra, however. A day earlier, a similar plea deal reportedly offered to Cuadra was rejected.

As part of his plea agreement, Kerekes was required to initial and acknowledge a series of fifteen statements contained in a Guilty Plea Colloquy affirming that he could read, speak, write, and understand English; that he was not under the influence of alcohol or any drugs as he signed the document; that he understood he was in court for the purpose of pleading guilty to criminal charges pending against him; that he had the right to a trial by jury, but that he was waiving that right; that a trial by jury would include twelve citizens chosen from Luzerne County and that his attorneys would have had the right to help select those jurors; that all twelve jurors would have to agree to his guilt before he would be convicted, and that during a trial he would have been presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that the state would have to prove at trial each element of the criminal charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him; that he was entering into a plea agreement with the state for the purposes of pleading guilty; that the judge could decide to reject the plea agreement; that if the judge rejected the agreement, he could withdraw his guilty plea and “be in the same position as if no agreement had ever taken place”; that he understood the terms of the plea agreement; that he agreed to plead guilty; that he had not been subject to any threat or force to offer his guilty plea; that no promises had been made to him to enter the plea, other than what was stated in the plea agreement; and that the plea agreement had the same effect as if a judge or jury had found him guilty on the same charges.

The colloquy was signed by Kerekes, his lawyers, and the DA’s lawyers.

In court, the state detailed for the court the information Kerekes had provided as part of his proffer on the guilty plea about his participation in a plan to “eliminate” Kocis as a competitor in the gay porn business, and how he and Cuadra had come to Luzerne County for the express purpose of committing murder. Kerekes’ plea allowed him to maintain his now-oft repeated claims that he was at the Fox Ridge Inn Motel at the time of the murder and that he did not physically participate in slaying Kocis. Prosecutors were not arguing that point any more, and instead began focusing on Cuadra as the man who actually killed the victim.

Kocis’ family was permitted to provide “victim impact statements” as part of the hearing to consider Kerekes plea. Kocis’ father Michael told the court, “We will never forgive nor will we ever forget what Mr. Kerekes did to this family.” Assistant DA Melnick said, “This was the most catastrophic and momentous event that ever happened to the Kocis family. They are seeking closure. It has been a rough road.” For his part, Kerekes turned away as Mr. Kocis read his statement and later told the judge weakly, “I’m sorry” without elaborating.
⁽¹⁾

Judge Olszewski read in detail the charges Kerekes was pleading to and reminded him, “Mr. Kerekes, you’re essentially giving up your life in society as you know it. In an instant, you will not be a free man for the rest of your life.” Kerekes nodded in agreement and answered with a quiet “yes” to each charge the judge reviewed to assure he knew what he was pleading to.
⁽²⁾
        

As he was led away from the courthouse, Kerekes had one more statement for reporters, answering a question saying he would “absolutely not” testify against Cuadra in any future trial.

Joe’s testimony offers Harlow no hope

Joe Kerekes knows the details of Bryan Kocis’ death—they were told to him, he says, by Harlow Cuadra. But his refusal to testify, to even lie for his former lover and partner, meant he could offer Cuadra no hope in his murder trial about to unfold.

“Harlow told me that he sat next to (Kocis), face to face with him on the couch, and they came in together to kiss and Harlow just reached behind his back and pulled out the knife and sliced him,” Kerekes recounts, demonstrating with his hands how Cuadra moved in to kiss Kocis before cutting him.
⁽³⁾

Kerekes adds a grisly detail that seems difficult, if not impossible, to believe. He claims, “Harlow told me that as he was cutting him, Bryan said, ‘Why are you doing this to me?’ and Harlow told he me said, ‘This is to keep you from raping any more little boys.’”
⁽⁴⁾