Where to start with all the new happenings with Harlow and Joe?
It seems over the last month I have missed a lot of stuff that has been going on.
Harlow has no attorney now because of a court order not allowing his attorney to represent him. WOW.
What is going on up in PA? Is this really like his attorney said and the Prosecution really scared to have him defend Harlow?
Joe seemed to testify they only discussed the fees for the case and nothing else. If this was true, there certainly would be no conflict of interest. So we have to wonder what is happening up there. Are they actually scared to have an attorney represent Harlow?
When I say an actual attorney, I mean someone with the training and experience needed to represent someone in a murder case. By the way, public defenders or ambulance chasing attorneys seem to lack this experience.
Now I have heard or read there will be an appeal filed on the latest from the courts.
Should be interesting to see what happens.
Anyway, I’m going to try to get caught up on everything that has happened.
4 comments:
Though I think H&J are guilty, this case is taking on certain characteristics to another case I've been following for awhile...
"Joe seemed to testify they only discussed the fees for the case and nothing else. If this was true, there certainly would be no conflict of interest. So we have to wonder what is happening up there."
Much to wonder about? No way Jose! The judge thought Joe was a lying sack of shit.
Here's the judge's exact quote:
"Defendant Kerekes’ explanation ... fails miserably."
Like I said, when the judge calls your testamony a miserable failure, not much to wonder about there.
Ng,
What other case are you following with the same characteristics?
Jim,
Even though I have not been here for the last month, is there any reason you feel inclined to be on my blog?
In answer to your Jim question, yes, the same reason I come over here. Suffice it to say we are a mutual admiration society.
You really should read Judge Peter Olszewski's decision for yourself. Relying on Elm for interpretation can lead to serious errors of fact such as the one that Jim pointed out.
Here's another flaw in your blurb: the judge did not deny Harlow representation. He dismissed Fannick for conflict of interest, coupled with the fact that Fannick refused to take the stand and be questioned by the Prosecution and the Judge. That little fact featured prominently in the judge's 8 page memorandum, right beside Joe Kerekes' longer outburst indicating surprise that Fannick was no longer representing himself. Too bad the judge didn't buy the fraud being pulled on the court.
Post a Comment