The Testimony of David Lind, Part 1
This is the beginning of David Lind’s testimony at the preliminary trial for John Holmes in February, 1982. To be continued…
One thing is certain, Holmes had a damn good lawyer. He chimes in a few times.
More to come.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
DAVID CLAY LIND
Called as a witness by the People, was sworn and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COEN (Prosecutor):
Q: Mr. Lind, do you know the defendant?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Directing your attention to sometime prior to June 29, 1981: Were you at 8763 Wonderland in Los Angeles?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: By the way, was Barbara Richardson your girlfriend?
A: Yes.
Q: And sometime prior to June 29, 1981, did you have a conversation with the defendant regarding a proposed robbery?
A: Yes. Several.
Q: When was the first conversation?
A: Approximately one week prior to the incidents.
Q: One week prior to June 29?
A: That is correct.
Q: And who brought up the conversation?
A: Mr. Holmes.
Q: And what did the defendant Holmes say?
MR. HANSON: If the Court please, I’m not going to object at this point but I would ask the Court to allow me to reserve a motion to strike if it appears not to link up with any aspect of the case.
THE COURT: So reserved.
BY MR. COEN:
Q: What did the defendant Holmes say regarding a robbery on June 29?
A: Mr. Holmes was acquainted with a gentleman by the name of Edward Nash. At that time I didn’t know that is who it was, ad he suggested that Mr. Launius, Mr. Deverell, and myself should rob Mr. Nash as Mr. Nash was in possession of a considerable amount of narcotics, cash and jewelry.
Q: Now, at this time or shortly thereafter did the defendant tell you how he knew Mr. Edward Nash?
A: Yes. The defendant was a frequent visitor of Mr. Nash’s house. In our association that was drug-related.
Q: Why don’t you go ahead and describe what the association was and how it worked between you and the defendant and Nash?
A: Well, John used to purchase heroin from Mr. Nash for Mr. Launius and Mr. Deverell and, and there were times when there wasn’t any cash exchanged. There were articles, such as weapons, jewelry, for collateral.
Q: And how were these articles, the collateral, how would it work? How would it get to Nash?
A: Well, John would take them from the house at Wonderland Avenue and proceed to take it to Mr. Nash and then come back with the drugs.
Q: So Holmes, defendant Holmes, would go between the house on Wonderland Avenue and Nash’s house. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: What else, a week prior to June 29, did the defendant say regarding this robbery?
A: Well, the defendant was very adamant in that we do this robbery as he was familiar with Mr. Deverell and Mr. Launius’s past and in doing, as doing the same type of thing, robbing large drug connections, and Mr. Holmes was in debt to Mr. Launius and Mr. Deverell and also he was complaining that he did not have enough money to pay his film editors for his latest film. He was very persistent that we do this and that he volunteered to set up Mr. Nash for us.
Q: Was any plan proposed as to how the robbery was to go down?
A: Yes.
Q: Who proposed the plan?
A: Well, the plan was that John was to go in the house and leave an exit or entrance open for us to enter and commit the robbery and after that Mr. Holmes drew an entire diagram on a piece of paper about 24 inches square as to how the inside layout of the house was.
Q: Who was to participate in this robbery?
A: In the beginning it was Mr. Launius, Mr. Deverell, and myself.
Q: And subsequent to that did another party enter into this robbery plan?
A: Yes. Approximately one week prior to the robbery – which would be what? June 29, I believe?
Q: June 29? Yes.
A: Yeah. Mr. Launius, Mr. Deverell and myself took a look at it and I didn’t like it and they deferred to my opinion and then we went back to the house and then it was a couple of days after that that Barbara Richardson and myself left for a few days and we arrived back at the house on Wonderland Avenue, Sunday the 28th, I believe, and that is the date preceding the robbery.
Q: You arrived back on the date prior to the robbery?
A: Yes. In the afternoon, late, around noon.
Q: And was anyone else there?
A: Joy Miller was there at that time.
Q: What happened next?
A: She said that —
MR. HANSON: Your Honor, if the Court please, I’ll object at this point as to apparently going into hearsay.
THE COURT: Yes. The words are being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The objection is well taken.
MR. COEN: I think it is, the People would propose, is being offered to show the effect on this witness and explain subsequent conduct.
THE COURT: Then the Court will not accept the words for the truth of the matter asserted but for the purpose offered. Once again, subject to your motion to strike.
MR. HANSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Hanson. And you may continue your answer, Mr. Lind.
BY MR. COEN:
Q: What did Joy Miller say to you?
A: Joy Miller indicated to Barbara Richardson and myself that Mr. Deverell and Mr. Launius and Tracy McCourt were at that time somewhere near Mr. Nash’s house – what is it they say in the business? – casing the house for the robbery.
Q: Based upon this what did you do?
A: Based upon that, at that time, well, Ronnie – well, I was in residence at the house there. I was living there and about that time Ronnie called and asked me to stay there, that he was coming back.
Q: Did you stay there?
A: Yes. I did. And in the interim there were two or three more calls made. They were having some difficulty, I don’t know what it was, and then they returned to the house.
Q: Now, when did you next see the defendant Holmes?
A: Mr. Holmes arrived there sometime about midafternoon.
Q: And were any other plans made at this time regarding the robbery that was to take place the next day?
A: Yes. Mr. Launius provided Mr. Holmes with some money in order to purchase some narcotics from Mr. Nash and to enter the house and leave a door open for us to enter.
Q: What was to happen after that?
A: Well, Mr. Launius and Mr. Deverell and Mr. McCourt and myself were to then proceed to Mr. Nash’s house and enter through the entrance – whatever – that was left open – at that time we weren’t sure – and proceed to rob Mr. Nash.
Q: That day, the 28th, that Sunday, were any other plans made or was that it until the next day?
A: During the course of – very well – between the time approximately 3:00 o’clock Sunday afternoon and onto about 4:00 — 3:00 or 4:00 A.M. the next morning – Mr. Holmes had made two or three trips to Mr. Nash’s house in order to make sure that it was a sliding glass door, a rear guest bedroom was left open as an entrance way to the house, that would be to the right of the house
and the bedroom was located in the front but as from inside the house it would be a rear bedroom.
Q: Directing your attention to the early morning hours of June 29, Monday: Did defendant Holmes ever tell you that anything was or everything was taken care of or words to that effect?
A: Yes. Mr. Holmes returned to the residence on Wonderland Avenue approximately 3:00 to 4:00 A.M., as I stated before, and informed Mr. Deverell and Mr. Launius and myself that everything was fine and Mr. Nash was in bed, Mr. Diles was going to bed; that they were all there and he proceeded to tell us that we should do it as quick as possible as something might change in the
interim.
Q: What happened after that?
A: Well, partially because Mr. Launius and Mr. Deverell had a drug habit we had a hard time getting together. We did not get out of the house until 8:00 o’clock in the morning.
Q: So around 8:00 o’clock in the morning of June 29 did you go somewhere?
A: Yes. We proceeded to Mr. Nash’s residence.
Q: Now, when you say “we” you are referring to —
A: I am referring to Mr. Tracy McCourt, Mr. Billy Deverell, Mr. Ronald Launius, and myself.
Q: Where was the defendant Holmes, if you can recall?
A: Mr. Holmes stayed at the residence on Wonderland Avenue along with Joy Miller and Barbara
Richardson.
Q: So when you arrived at 3315 Dona Lola Place, the residence of Ed Nash, what is the next thing that occurred?
A: We instructed Mr. McCourt to park the vehicle in such a way as he could observe the street in front of Mr. Nash’s house. DonnaLola ended in a cul-de-sac and the street there, he backed in such a way and parked on the right hand side facing out so where he could see traffic coming in and where he could also have a good view of the house and then Mr. Deverell and Mr. Launius and
myself proceeded to the right front area of Mr. Nash’s residence and there was a chain link fence there and as it was not connected to the side of the house we just pushed it forward and it, it, it gave us access to the sliding glass doors which were left open by Mr. Holmes and entered the
guest bedroom. There was a doorway leading into the hallway there which leads into the sort of the middle of the house – I really can’t describe it other than the fact that it is, it has a recreation room leading off it, the kitchen, everything goes off that area of the house and Mr. Launius opened the door and was listening there for about a minute or so and then the three of us proceeded down the hallway, to that area.
Q: What happened next?
A: As I was the first one in that area I observed Mr. Diles coming out of the kitchen with a serving tray in his hands.
Q: By “Mr. Diles” you are referring to Gregory Diles, a black, approximately 300 pound person?
A: Yes. Very large.
Q: What happened next?
A: I had in my possession at the time a leather case containing a San Francisco police officer badge, No. 1820, along with false identification identifying me as a police officer and I shouted the words “Freeze! Freeze! Police! You are under arrest!” At that time Mr. Launius and Mr. Deverell also threw down on Mr. Nash. All three of us were armed.
Q: By that you mean you pointed handguns —
A: Yes. We had weapons – yes – and we displayed weapons.
Q: Now, Mr. Nash was with Greg Diles at this time?
A: Yes. Immediately upon entering that area Mr. Diles was directly in front of me and Mr. Nash was to our right.
Q: What happened after that?
A: As we identified ourselves as police officers we, all of us, had handcuffs, had handcuffs and proceeded to handcuff Mr. Diles and to lay him on his stomach and that is next to a wall between the, a pool table and a wall, which is just in front of the kitchen there and Mr. Launius and Mr. Deverell had Mister, Mr. Nash was on his knees, there was accidental gunshot discharge. While I was handcuffing Mr. Diles Ron Launius bumped my arm and the weapon went off and Mr. Nash immediately fell to his knees and asked Mr. Launius to say a prayer.
Q: After the gunshot went off was someone injured
because of that?
A: Yes. There were, Mr. Diles was the person that I was handcuffing and the weapon was in back of him and subsequently when the shot went off he suffered from powder burns which caused him to bleed very minutely over an area approximately six to eight inches in diameter from the flash, muzzle flash of the weapon.
Q: What happened after this?
A: Well, I proceeded to, to finish handcuffing Mr. Diles and laid him on the floor and put a throw rug over his head so he couldn’t observe what we were doing. As I stated before, at that time Mr. Nash was on his knees with his hands behind his head and Mr. Launius and Mr. Deverell proceeded to take Mr. Nash into his bedroom and I followed shortly thereafter.
Q: What happened at this time?
A: Mr. Nash was asked to lay face down on the carpet of his living room – pardon me – of his bedroom and Mr. Launius proceeded to a wardrobe closet where there was a floor safe, as we had been informed by Mr. Holmes that there was a safe in Mr. Nash’s closet and asked Mr. Nash where the, for the key and/or combination – I don’t really recall which – at that time Mr. Nash told
Mr. Launius that, he gave him the correct answer, I guess you would say, and Mr. Launius proceeded to open the safe and withdraw a, what would be called a half pound storage zip-lock bag, polyethylene, which was approximately three quarters full of what looked to me at
that time to be cocaine.
Q: Did you — you’ve seen cocaine before?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: Did you subsequently determine that this stuff was actually cocaine?
A: Yes, it was.
More to come…. stay tuned!
lucian, 
Olds, and 5 others are discussing. 
Wonderland1981 - The Wonderland Murders 
John 9:45 pm on August 23, 2020 Permalink |
Reblogged this on Wonderland1981 – The Wonderland Murders.
LikeLike
lucian 3:46 pm on September 24, 2014 Permalink |
No, I seriously doubt Lind did know the truth. The Aryan Brotherhood is a much stronger force, unfortunately, to be reckoned with. Lind knew he was safe. He was untouchable.
LikeLike
Olds 11:05 am on July 10, 2014 Permalink |
Love the blog john! I have read a ton of posts. This blog has info you can find no where else. My cousin met David Lind in 1988-89. He met him through Leonard Padilla the Sacramento Area bail bondsman. My cousin was living with Leonard and his son at the time and was starting his own decent into drug abuse so Leonard drove him over to a seedy motel in West Sac that Lind and his girlfriend at the time were living in. Leonard thought it would be helpful for my cousin to talk to Lind about his experiences in the drug world.
My cousin told me Lind hand the long grey beard going and was combing it the whole time the talked. His old lady was strung out and pacing around the small crappy hotel room. Lind told my cousin he should can could do whatever he wants with his life but be prepared for whatever comes with the going down that road. He said Lind was matter of fact and intimidating. My cousin was around 17 at the time. I am from the Sacramento area and know a lot of people in the
Marysville/Olivehurst area. I first became interested in this case around 1993 when I read the Rolling Stone article when I was in high school. I later became even more interested when I found out Launias and Lind were from the Sacramento area (my hometown) and I knew where most of the events they were involved in in Northern California. Thanks again for the blog John. I’ll try to post more later.
LikeLike
localarts 11:47 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
I used to have a subscription to the LA Times and a few other papers years ago. Bits and pieces can still be found on line. As much as I can recall, David Lind was in custody for narcotics dealing at the time he testified much like the 82 trial but your right he was a much different man. Without saying it in so many words he tries to intimidate Nash & Diles from the witness stand by accusing them of the murders.
I remember he referred to Nash & Diles as ‘Those Mother Fu***rs” a few times. Lind said nothing would have ever become of the Nash robbery if Holmes were not in the picture. But he did admit the robbery was a bad idea from the get go. Lind said something like” Drug dealers like Nash are not the one’s you want to f**k with” and this was before the robbery took place.
Lind still maintained John Holmes was the one who came up with the Idea for the Nash robbery. I remember Lind said the robbery was set up to settle a drug debt Holmes owed to Launius and never really mentioned the antique Colt’s as I recall.
I think its clear David Lind really didn’t care anymore. I think the whole ordeal took his soul. He more or less comes clean about knowing who they were going to rob and at the same time tries to antagonize Nash in the court room…I never understood that. Lind was Damn brave to act this way. Not sure why Nash didn’t waste him after the trial was over.
Alot of the information I read back then were exerts from the premlin not transcripts like long time money. I know there is some things I’m forgetting it’s been a long time. May rack my brain over the coming weekend see if anything else comes to mind.
LikeLike
localarts 11:43 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink |
I think when Launius, Deverell and McCourt were initially “casing” the place as Lind explained. Ron Launius may have had a foreboding sense of what the consequences might be. Lind knew who Eddie Nash was, so did everybody else. When Holmes concocted this dumb ass idea Lind said the rest of the gang deferred to his opinion. Why? Because David Lind & everybody else at that meeting knew it was Eddie Nash they would be robbing.
That’s what the gang did, they robbed other drug dealers and sold their stash, so why else would they defer to Lind’s opinion for this particular robbery? Lind clearly lies about this in the 82 trial to cover his ass so to speak: (Sorry Ed, didn’t know it was you bro.) When Launius, Deverell and McCourt returned from casing Nash’s house, this may have been the moment McCourt said everybody was backing out of the robbery with the exception of McCourt himself & Deverell.
The 89 prelim would be much, much different with regard’s to David Lind.
LikeLike
Jenn 1:32 pm on June 24, 2013 Permalink |
I agree with you. I think they TOTALLY knew who they were robbing.
LikeLike
John 5:19 pm on June 24, 2013 Permalink |
Great explanation localarts, with what is available to us and shit it’s been 30+ years. I’d love to have a casual 1982 photo of Dave…to compare to 1989-90… i think the whole ordeal from 81 really screwed him up mentally and physically. He looked totally different in 1989-90. Haunting, as you’d expect after you get a sweet beautiful girlfriend murdered.
LikeLike
Jenn 11:29 pm on June 24, 2013 Permalink
I’d like to see that myself. I think it deeply effected him.
LikeLike
localarts 4:22 pm on June 25, 2013 Permalink
No doubt. I’m sure Lind was constantly looking over his soldier.
LikeLike
Bobby 12:39 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink |
They fully knew who they were robbing and had convinced themselves that it was too easy a score to pass up on, even if it was “The Prince of Darkness”. At that point it was drugs and money that was dictating their decision making process. It appears they didn’t seem to fear retribution either as they figured they’d be out of LA long before Nash worked out who robbed him. It’s obvious Lind is trying to implicate Holmes as the guy who came up with the plan as revenge and to exonerate himself. If you think about it Holmes had a helluva lot more to lose down the track once Nash put 2 and 2 together. I tend to think he was 70% forced into setting Nash up and saw it as the only way of getting out of debt. Time and time again we see how drugs and greed lead to REALLY BAD decisions.
Weird how Lind says that the gang, whilst out casing Nash’s house, was having some difficulty. Wonder what all that was about?
If you look at the current Google Maps street-view photo of 3315 Dona Lola Place you’ll notice a silver Mercedes parked on the right side of the street facing Dona Lola Drive. Going by Lind’s testimony this seems to be the exact place that McCourt had parked the getaway car. I still can’t get over how brazen it was to pull a robbery off, with a loud gunshot no less, at 8 AM in an upperclass cul-de-sac! The balls on these guys!
LikeLike
John 8:38 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink
Classic observations, bro! I’m going to google earth that address again!
LikeLike
John 9:23 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
I wish that I could find Lind’s 1989 prelim testimony!! What is that like, localarts??? He is a different man and would be dead within 5 more years I guess.
LikeLike
Bonnie Brae 11:03 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink |
You know what bothers me about his “book”. The entire thing is just cut and pasted. In the opening – he discusses Eddie Nash and goes on about the 36 liquor licenses, did you notice that there is not one thing that he puts in the book (so far) that we haven’t read on line. Oh I take it back, he does throw in his biased opinion. You don’t want to read that shit when you buy a book. You just want the facts.
LikeLike
John 11:09 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink |
It reads more like True Crime Fiction. Mike Sager’s long Rolling Stone article does a much better job at telling the story, but I appreciate this book Bonnie and the testimony is outstanding!!!! It is a good day in Wonderland.
LikeLike
localarts 3:25 pm on June 24, 2013 Permalink |
I agree. Seems like Roger Jacobs simply cut and pasted the trial transcripts and then made up a bunch of nonsense about Launius. I would love to see these “reports” Jacobs speaks of when he is talking about Ronnie.
LikeLike
Jenn 9:33 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink |
Fascinating. Everything I’ve read about David Lind before suggests he was some rude, crude, mean dude who spoke in slang terms on the witness stand but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
LikeLike
John 11:07 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink |
You are right though, Jenn. Eight years later at Nash/Diles trails, Lind IS visibly more rude and mean… but he was still a good witness, just not for the defense.
LikeLike
Jenn 1:30 pm on June 24, 2013 Permalink
True. Maybe as the years passed and after many more drugs and other less than favorable activities, combined with bitter memories made him meaner. I wouldn’t have messed with him.
LikeLike