The Testimony of Det. Frank Tomlinson, Part 1
FRANK TOMLINSON
Called as a witness by the People, was sworn and testified as follows:
BY MR. COEN:
A: Police officer for the City of Los Angeles assigned to Robbery-Homicide Division.
A: Yes, I did.
A: Yes, I did.
A: From a card.
A: Yes, I do.
Valley in 1984. He is, as of this writing, the Pastor of Counseling Ministries at Cornerstone
Center for Biblical Counseling in Simi Valley.
Q: Would you please read the card as you did to the defendant on that date?
A: I told him that he had the right to remain silent and if he gave up the right to remain silent anything he said could and would be used against him in a court of law; that he had the right to speak with an attorney and to have the attorney present during questioning and if he desired and could not afford one an attorney would be appointed for him without charge before questioning.
A: Yes, I did. I had a conversation with him in regard to him understanding his rights after that.
A: When I advised him of the rights I just read to him I reminded him that I had advised him of those rights a couple of days prior and that on that occasion he stated that he understood his rights and had no questions about them and, as a matter of fact, he had stated on that occasion that he knew his rights prior to my telling him what they were. I told him that his rights were so important that I wanted to go over them point by point with him so that he understood exactly what they were and I told him once again that he had the right to remain silent and he stated
that he understood his rights and I told him that he had a right to an attorney and that if he wanted one and could not afford one one would be provided and he stated that he had no question about that. I asked him if he wanted to give up his rights so that we could talk, the right to remain silent and to an attorney, and he nodded in the affirmative. So I told him that I wanted him to understand that if a case was filed on him and that we subsequently ended up in court that I would be sitting in a witness box and he would be at the counsel table and that everything that he told me I would testify to in court and he stated that he understood that.
A: Yes, sir.
A: At that point I told him I would just like for him to tell me everything that happened in regard to the murders and he stated that after Nash was robbed that Nash made him tell who had robbed him. He said that Nash held him at the Nash house, took his address book and wrote down names of his family. He said that he did that in front of him and that Nash told him that if he ever talked to the police he would kill someone in his family and he said that is why he is afraid to tell me what happened.
At that time I told him that one of his palm prints had been found in a location and in a position above one of the victims and he stated that he had not hit anyone and I told him that I had just realized that perhaps Nash had made him strike one of the victims thinking that if he himself were involved in the murders that he would be afraid to talk and I assured him that he was just as guilty of first degree murder for what he had told me in regard to going to the house to allow killers inside so that the people could die as he would be if he had struck one of the victims and he again repeated that he himself had not hit anyone and he said that he did not know how his palm print would have been near one of the victims.
A: Yes. He stated that he had no choice in going there and that he had to set things up and let them in.
A: Yes. I told him that I had gotten a statement from Dawn Schiller regarding the fact that she claimed he had told her that “Nash’s niggers” were the ones that made him go there and let them in.
A: Yes. Those were her words. And he stated that could not be specific and give me a race. So I asked him that if I arrested Nash and Diles for the murders would I be making a mistake? And he stated “No. Ed Nash is the most evil man I have ever met. He has people around him that would kill for him even if he was dead” and that he knew John’s 16-year old girlfriend. He knows this to be a fact and therefore cannot tell me anything specific in regard to the murders or testify against Nash because he would be jeopardizing his own family. He said that he knew he would probably be killed in jail but that so far Nash had left his family alone and he could only assume that that had occurred because he had not talked.
A: Yes.
Jenn 10:12 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
I realize there was not enough evidence and that’s why he was acquitted but damn.
Bobby 10:26 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
One of the things that really bugs me about this whole case is why was Nash so intent on having Holmes witness the killings? I understand that it was fuelled by blind rage and was a way of getting back at Holmes but it seemed like such a rash decision. Basically everything was hinging on Holmes not singing like a bird! Who’s to say he wouldn’t fold under police questioning and give up the game? Nash now knew he was a scumbag for organising the robbery so how could he trust him regardless of the threat to his family. Surely Nash would’ve been suspicious of Holmes telling his family to run and hide and then squealing to the cops. I dunno, it just seems like a such a dumb move to put so much trust in somebody that screwed you over already. Coke is one helluva drug.
localarts 10:37 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
Sharon Holmes told the director of Wonderland she believed John committed at least one of the murders that night. Remember, she saw him within a hour or so of the actual killings and nobody KNEW John Holmes better that she did.
dreamweaverjenn 11:17 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
That is the truth! NOBODY knew him like Sharon.
Bobby 12:24 pm on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
Well if Holmes had participated in murder then it makes sense Nash thought he had little to fear re: him talking. Although when push came to shove Holmes could pull the “forced into it at gunpoint” card so he still would implicate Nash. Either way it was a huge risk he was taking with Holmes.. it seems he had plenty more to lose. Undoubtedly the kind of power he had made him feel untouchable. The Wonderland gang momentarily shattered that illusion.
John 12:28 pm on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
And was he left-handed..? That would explain how he knocked that hanging plant down while swinging at Barb in the living room. That plant was hanging up to the left of the couch, between that and the patio doors….that’s always been my theory.
Bonnie Brae 4:43 pm on June 26, 2013 Permalink
You know how Tracy said John first called (then later said “go get em.” when they passed each other in cars). I think he went down the hill and called from Du Pars. It’s where he called Eddie from, before he fled to Florida. Cause you know he did not have a cel phone. And it’s only 5 mins from Eddies, maybe not even that.
localarts 1:07 pm on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
Good observation John. I have no idea if Holmes were left handed or not.
John W 4:44 pm on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
And I wonder if John and the killers got based up before Wonderland.
dreamweaverjenn 4:47 pm on June 26, 2013 Permalink
Maybe before and after. A person would have to be out of their mind to commit murders like that.
Bobby 3:16 am on June 27, 2013 Permalink
Without question John.. I think everything that transpired in and around the robbery/murders occurred in a thick blanket of drug haze!
To quote Lind in the movie when asked if he used drugs before the robbery: “Never when I’m working”.. Yeah right! What a crock of s%&#!!
Jill C. Nelson 10:56 pm on June 26, 2013 Permalink |
“Good observation John. I have no idea if Holmes were left handed or not.”
Holmes was right-handed.
Odd that Tomlinson would refer to “John’s girlfriend” (Dawn Schiller) as a 16 year old. At the time of John’s arrest in Florida, Schiller was almost 21 years old. Hmmm.