It would appear that convicted murderers' Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes weren't/aren't the only one's dealing with debt issues. Apparently someone by the name of Grant A. Roy from San Diego, California (sound familiar?) has been, and is still currently being sued in Civil Court by several credit card companies too:
IC878915
ROY, GRANT A
CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA N A
San Diego
Civil
01/24/2007
37-2009-00087879-CL-R3-CTL
ROY, GRANT A
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N A
San Diego
Civil
04/17/2009
37-2009-00085063-CL-R3-CTL
ROY, GRANT A
CAPITAL ONE BANK [USA] N A
San Diego
Civil
03/13/2009
37-2007-00084858-CL-CL-CTL
ROY, GRANT A
DISCOVER BANK ISSUER OF THE DISCOVER CARD
San Diego
Civil
12/31/2007
Oddly enough, the first suit filed was on the same day Bryan Kocis was murdered... now how weird is that... and what are the chances that there's more than one Grant A. Roy living in the San Diego area?
Strange coincidence, or something deeper? Who knows... but it is kind of odd if you ask me.
IC878915
ROY, GRANT A
CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA N A
San Diego
Civil
01/24/2007
37-2009-00087879-CL-R3-CTL
ROY, GRANT A
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N A
San Diego
Civil
04/17/2009
37-2009-00085063-CL-R3-CTL
ROY, GRANT A
CAPITAL ONE BANK [USA] N A
San Diego
Civil
03/13/2009
37-2007-00084858-CL-CL-CTL
ROY, GRANT A
DISCOVER BANK ISSUER OF THE DISCOVER CARD
San Diego
Civil
12/31/2007
Oddly enough, the first suit filed was on the same day Bryan Kocis was murdered... now how weird is that... and what are the chances that there's more than one Grant A. Roy living in the San Diego area?
Strange coincidence, or something deeper? Who knows... but it is kind of odd if you ask me.
I think we knew we weren't dealing with the most responsible people on the anti-Kocis side.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting info about the suits is that it looks like the Capital One cards might have been replacements for the CitiBank and Discover cards. That's speculation, of course, but in that case Capital One would deserve to lose every penny.
Until the economy went over the cliff, I got Capital One and MBNA credit card solicitations at least twice a month.
"Strange coincidence, or something deeper?"
ReplyDeleteNeither. I do feel we're reaching a bit here PC. So Grant was living beyond his means. It's the American Way. If this had any bearing whatsoever on the case, you can be sure it would have been uncovered by now.
Out of sheer curosity, I checked the white pages and got only one hit on "Grant Roy". The Google map attached to it indicated a location for the house in a site that bears a remarkable general resemblance to a scene in one of Brent's videos that was published just after starting thier own business.
ReplyDelete"will g said...
ReplyDeleteNeither. I do feel we're reaching a bit here PC."
I don't think so... both parties had financial trouble before the murder. So are we to believe the comments made over a un-recorded lamb dinner in Vegas to be true?
Then we have Grant making a comment on Jim's blog:
"Try having the majority of your income undermined for nearly 4 years due to civil issues and see what happens! Especially when your business partner steels in upwards of half a million dollars from your company!"
Something doesn't make sense...
Why would Harlow and Joe just kill someone they don't even know?
It's apparent that both sides were having financial problems...
What's interesting is that everyone on the jury that I've spoken with, felt that Sean and Grant did have something to do with the murder... that they at least "planted a seed" was the general consensus.
PC, you still have access to your transcripts of the BBT's and CCT's. I read them all. If there was a single word in them that implicated Sean and Grant, I must have overlooked it. Maybe you could point it out to me.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Las Vegas dinner, as I have said before, Grant's version of that dinner conversation has the ring of truth, in that he admitted hearing Joe and Harlow hint of murder but brushed it off. Why would he even admit that possibly incriminating fact to investigators if it weren't true?
Yes indeed Grant and Sean "planted a seed," by telling H & J that Kocis was an impediment to their forming a "partnership" with them. That's the extent of it, based on the evidence.
they at least "planted a seed" was the general consensus.
ReplyDeleteA long time ago I gave an analogy on this blog: You hire a guy to paint your grandmother's house. He ends up raping her. You didn't have any idea that would happen, but if you're a normal feeling human being, you would feel a certain amount of guilt -- maybe a lot of guilt.
If Lockhart and Roy had never met with Cuadra and Kerekes, the murder would not have occurred, IMO. Yet I never felt they had any feeling of responsibility or guilt, especially, Grant Roy, who continued to attack Kocis long after his murder.
At the time when I mentioned it, I was pretty soundly beaten on by some of the Sean-Grant crew.
The lack of regret along with the delay in reporting the morning-after phone call has left me with a less than positive opinion of the Lockhart and Roy. They seem ammoral -- without conscience -- very similar to H&J.
"will g said...
ReplyDeletePC, you still have access to your transcripts of the BBT's and CCT's. I read them all. If there was a single word in them that implicated Sean and Grant, I must have overlooked it. Maybe you could point it out to me."
Considering they (Sean & Grant) knew they would be... is it truely any surprise?
Why would he even admit that possibly incriminating fact to investigators if it weren't true?
ReplyDeleteWill, while I'm not making any accusations, the report of that conversation comes from someone who is certainly not a disinterested party.
That particular statement that you mention is not incriminating. It is just the opposite. It gives the impression that Roy was NOT involved and MAY have been included by Roy for just that purpose.
After all, that's why you believe his version.
It worked for you. It worked for the police. We have no idea what was actually said, but Roy's version HELPS him.
PC, Harlow and Joe felt free to say anything on the beach, and did so. They did NOT know they were being recorded there, contrary to the wacky claims by Elm. If there were any truth to the "planting the seed" theory, it would surely have come out in those recordings.
ReplyDeletePizza, Grant could simply have said nothing about the "Canada" remarks, which would surely be MORE helpful to him than disclosing it.
Grant could simply have said nothing about the "Canada" remarks, which would surely be MORE helpful to him than disclosing it.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree, Will. There ample evidence that Cuadra thought he was doing Lockhart and Roy a favor. The morning-after phone call, for instance. I don't think that H&J received a "kill him" agreement at the dinner, but they likely left with the impression -- correct or not -- that Roy wanted Kocis taken care of one way or the other.
The possibility of murder was obviously mentioned at that dinner. The question is whether Roy's version is completely truthful or slanted to make himself look better.
In addition, it is unlikely that Roy had the ability -- months later -- to remember the exact words that were said.
The secret of a good lie, which Cuadra didn't understand on the witness stand, is to stay as close to the truth as you can, changing only what is necessary for your purposes. That way it's easier to remember and harder to be contradicted.
ReplyDelete"There ample evidence that Cuadra thought he was doing Lockhart and Roy a favor."
ReplyDeleteContrary to there being ample evidence of that, I don't recall ANY. I think that's more of a presumption on your part, Pizza. Where on the tapes does Harlow make such a statement? Even if that's what he thought, it was a faulty assumption likely based on Grant's antipathy for Kocis, and it in no way implicates Grant or Sean.
Contrary to there being ample evidence of that, I don't recall ANY.
ReplyDeleteCuadra called Lockhart the next day apparently expecting approval. Why else call. It's also obvious to me on the Blacks Beach tape that Cuadra was seeking and expecting approval.
No, you won't find blatant evidence, but I think that's evidence enough about what was in Cuadra's mind. He didn't get that approval, but it's plain as day to me that he expected it.
I'm not accusing Roy and Lockhart of asking H&J to commit murder. I don't know what was said at that dinner but whatever was said or not said did not leave Cuadra with the impression that he would be doing something Roy and Lockhart did not want him to do.
I don't know about Lockhart, since he has said very little since the murder, but I think Roy in his heart of hearts is happy Kocis is dead. Kocis has been dead for 2 years and during the trial Roy bad-mouthed him several times on this blog.
Maybe the porn business does that to people -- I don't know -- but Grant Roy is low-life. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel.
"It's also obvious to me on the Blacks Beach tape that Cuadra was seeking and expecting approval."
ReplyDeleteJim has addressed this issue far better than I can here.
Jim has addressed this issue far better than I can
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Jim is relying on his memory, as am I. When we again have access to the transcripts maybe he or I will be proved wrong.
I NEVER said Lockhart and Roy wanted Cuadra and Kerekes to murder Kocis. I said that I think (I don't know it for a fact) Cuadra left the dinner thinking he would be doing Lockhart and Roy a favor by murdering Kocis and expected they would be okay with it. We'll never know what was said at that dinner -- and a few paragraphs from Roy does not a two-hour conversation make.
You're reading a little too much in what I was saying.
I'm not in awe of Sean Lockhart. Jim is heavily into the porn business, if only as an observer, so he's always leaned toward the Sean camp. I have no opinion about Sean Lockhart since I've never been interested in kiddie porn. My negative opinion of Grant Roy is based almost solely on his posts during the trial.
The prejudice that I brought into this case was that, although there are no doubt exceptions, porn is in general a sleazy business of exploitation. Any list of dead porn stars is a litany of AIDS, drug overdoses, suicides, and sometimes murder.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe'll never know what was said at that dinner. . ."
ReplyDeleteWell, as a matter of fact, that's not true. We do know what was said. Grant recounts what was said in the transcripts quoted by Jim here, and Joe does not disagree with his account. It rather directly refutes the "planting the seed" version.
Also, I'm not sure why you say Jim was going by memory, Pizza, he was quoting from the affadavit in that post.
"Jim is heavily into the porn business. . ."
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get that idea, Pizza? Jim states here, "I am not a big porn person,"
PC and Pizza, I'm sorry if I've come across as too know-it-all or dismissive in those recent comments.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that I'm a little surprised, frankly, that we're going over this well-trod ground again. These kinds of arguments have been going on for two-and-a-half years now, and I was really hoping that, especially post-trial, the issue of Grant and Sean's complicity had been put to rest forever. Even Melody Kocis and Robert Wagner have stated that they don't believe there was any complicity whatsoever on their part. Yet everyone's entitled to their opinion and doubts. I suppose the cloud over Sean and Grant will never go away for some. I don't agree with it, but so be it.
I just wanted to mention that even though PC's BBT and CCT trancripts are no longer available here, Jim has posted many excerpts from them in posts on his blog, which can be found by doing a search there.
Will,
ReplyDeleteThe reason I connected Jim and the porn business is that it seems that porn star gossip, etc., is the major topic on his blog (other than this trial). I don't go there that often, but I've never seen a discussion about other gay issues -- issues of importance.
And you keep saying it's an issue of complicity and I've made no such claim and I don't think there was any. I've been trying to make 2 points:
(1) Somehow H&J left that dinner thinking they were doing Lockhard and Roy a favor.
(2) Roy's remembrance of the conversation has to be considered inaccurate, even if he intended it to be accurate, but we don't know that was his intention.
Maybe you're a little too accepting and I'm a little too suspicious, but I was paid to be suspicious.
Yeah, you're absolutely correct about the focus of Jim's blog Pizza. But I think he was filling his non-trial posts with other legal controversies surrounding porn stars to keep his blog kind of thematically consistent. It was never meant to be a general-interest blog about gay issues. That's just my perpective on it. He's said many times that he rarely watches porn, and had little interest in it prior to blogging about the trial.
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of sounding redundant, I think there's very little evidence that H & J left the Vegas restaurant thinking they'd be doing Sean and Grant a favor by killing Kocis. Joe did not disagree when Grant recalled telling him the EXACT OPPOSITE at the dinner. And I don't believe the rest of the tapes support that at all. The call Harlow made to Sean the day after could be interpreted that way I suppose, but it can be interpreted any number of ways.
"will g said...
ReplyDeletePC and Pizza, I'm sorry if I've come across as too know-it-all or dismissive in those recent comments."
Not at all will... and I hope I didn't come across that way as well.
"pizzaman said...
ReplyDeleteWill, while I'm not making any accusations, the report of that conversation comes from someone who is certainly not a disinterested party."
Exactly.
"That particular statement that you mention is not incriminating. It is just the opposite. It gives the impression that Roy was NOT involved and MAY have been included by Roy for just that purpose.
After all, that's why you believe his version.
It worked for you. It worked for the police. We have no idea what was actually said, but Roy's version HELPS him."
Very well said. We really don't know what was said during that dinner... afterall, there weren't keyfobs or agents nearby to listen.
Perhaps Grant and Sean were telling the truth, perhaps Joe and Harlow were telling the truth... we'll never know.
Will: The point I was trying to bring up is that all where in financial trouble at the time, and that should bring up questions... which goes back to the discussion I had with several jurors that thought that Grant and Sean were probably guilty of planting the seed if nothing else. (Here's folks that don't know anything about them saying this).
In regards to the tapes... I wouldn't expect Grant or Sean to admit to anything, they knew they were being recorded... but didn't Joe make the same statement? Neither Joe or Harlow actually ever admitted to killing Bryan in the tapes... they too where vague.
Well PC, what about the fact that on the CCT's Grant recounts the Vegas conversation for Joe, and Joe doesn't tell him he's remembering it wrong? Here is the relevant passage from Jim's blog:
ReplyDeleteGRANT ROY: ... ... Ya know when I told you In Vegas, when we were sitting there, and I said, that doesn't need to happen because they're gonna come to me first, and that's exactly what the fuck has been happening, what I've been dealing with, and it's, it's, I'm, I'm not happy and he's' been dealing with it, and he doesn't deserve it, cause he had to fight this Cobra shit for the past two years and now this shit.
And what's Joe response to this? Does he object to the premise, saying "oh no Grant, I don't recall you saying this does not need to happen..." Negative. In fact, the next words out of Joe's mouth are:
JOSEPH KEREKES: I understand if you guys want to leave us alone.
"will g said...
ReplyDeleteWell PC, what about the fact that on the CCT's Grant recounts the Vegas conversation for Joe, and Joe doesn't tell him he's remembering it wrong? Here is the relevant passage from Jim's blog:"
Doesn't tell me much at all... other than Jim can copy and paste as well :)
Isn't it amazing... the amount of folks that come out of the woodwork when their chum's are in the spotlight. (It's very well known Grant and Sean have a high, if not narcissistic following).
ReplyDeleteThe comments made on other blogs entertain me even more... I do chuckle. :)
Perhaps they're scared that the truth may actually come out?
ummmm...to get back to the topic of Grant's debts...is that why Sean/"Brent" is selling his recently considerable ass-ets to dirty bird studios??? seems strange that they have the same addy as brentcorriganinc.com...but maybe I'm being too suspicious?
ReplyDelete& btw, I think there's a LOT that didn't come out at trial...this may be another JFK-type conspiracy theory that goes on forever!
well, at least it'll keep PC busy ;) lol