Tagged: david lind testimony Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • John 9:08 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: david lind testimony, ,   

    The Testimony of David Lind, Part 2 

    Thanks to Bonnie for providing the testimony. Muy Bien, Chica!

    Here is part 2!  We get to see that Billy actually went up into Nash’s attic and found $10,000. And also that Ron had a Jeckyl and Hyde personality…he ran hot and cold. That’s classic.

    1972 Cadillac used in the film. I think Nash had a Lincoln Town Car in real life.

    1972 Cadillac used in the film. I think Nash had a Lincoln Town Car in real life.

    * * * * * * * * * *

    Q: What else was taken?
    A: Mr. Holmes had informed us earlier at the residence that there was also a laboratory vial,
    approximately eight to ten inches in length, half an inch in diameter, full of heroin which he called “China White”; that it was in the area of Mr. Nash’s dresser. We proceeded to pick that up. Also that there was an attaché case full of money and jewelry.

    Q: Did Holmes tell you this?
    A: Oh yes.

    Q: Did you find this attaché case?
    A: Yes. We found everything.

    Q: And what was inside this attaché case?
    A: Inside the attaché case was a considerable sum of money in 20’s, 50’s, and 100 dollar bills and a considerable amount of jewelry, gold jewelry, diamonds.

    Q: Anything else? By the way, where was this attaché case found?
    A: I’m not right quite sure where it was found. I know it was found in Mr. Nash’s bedroom because I made several trips in and out of the bedroom as Mr. Launius, Mr. Deverell had control of the situation in there I was going back and forth from the living room to the bedroom and looking out the front door to make sure that we weren’t disturbed, because of the gunshot earlier.

    Q: Did Eddie Nash say anything regarding an attic?
    A: I beg your pardon?

    Q: Did Eddie Nash tell you anything regarding an attic, any item in the attic?
    A: Yes. At that time we couldn’t really ascertain how much was there but it was not as much as Mr.
    Holmes indicated should have been there. Mr. Launius continued to question Mr. Nash as to where the rest was. In regards to the drugs Mr. Nash told him that they were at the Starwood12 but there was also, there was a sum of money in an attic off a hallway right outside his bedroom
    where there was a wooden ladder. At that point Mr. Deverell proceeded to climb up the stairs – the ladder, pardon me – and entered the attic and money was in a brown paper bag.

    Q: Approximately how much money, if you recall?
    A: Exactly $10,000.

    Q: Now was anything else, any weapons, found in the residence?
    A: Yes. While Mr. Deverell and Mr. Launius were dealing with Mr. Nash I was in the process of going through the house for weapons and in Mr. Diles’ bedroom I found a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun in his bedroom closet which I proceeded to unload and set on the pool table and in Mr. Diles’ closets there were two antique long guns. One was a flintlock rifle and the other was a Colt revolving shotgun. On Mr. Diles’ bedroom dresser there were two cap and ball percussion black powder pistols. One was a model 1856 Colt revolver with an engraved cylinder. This was the smaller of the two. Another one was approximately the same type. They were both antique pistols, Colts.

    Eddie Nash’s night club at the corner of Santa Monica and Crescent Heights Boulevards,
    currently the Whisky-A-Go-Go.

    Q: Of those four antique guns, the two long guns and the two handguns, were they familiar to you?
    A: Of those four particular weapons, the only thing familiar about them to me was the fact that those weapons had been taken to Mr. Nash’s home by Mr. Holmes prior to the incident to be held ad collateral for the purchase of narcotics and that they had been obtained in a prior burglary and were given to Mr. Holmes to take to Mr. Nash.

    Q: So –
    A: I recognized them by description. Other than that I had never seen them before.

    Q: So to speak, the guns made a full circle, from one to one? To DonnaLola, back to Wonderland?
    A: Yes, sir. That is correct.

    Q: Anything else taken?
    A: Yes.

    Q: What?
    A: There were, I proceeded to look under Mr. Nash’s bed as Mr. Holmes said Mr. Nash kept quite a number of guns in his house and I didn’t particularly care to get shot. I pulled out a Browning nine millimeter automatic pistol which is a, appeared to be to me a commemorative issue. It was nickel-plated with a gold trigger and a gold hammer in a brown vinyl case.

    Q: Was anything else taken or was that basically it?
    A: There was a grayish green metal box approximately 10 inches long, four inches in width and six
    inches in height which would describe the petty cash box. Inside that there were Quaaludes and cocaine. The attaché case containing money and the jewelry, the six zip-lock bags containing the cocaine and the heroin in the glass vial, the two antique pistols and this Browning nine millimeter automatic.

    Q: These are the items that you removed from the residence?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Prior to leaving what did you do regarding Nash and Diles?
    A: Well, as we were getting ready to leave Mr. Launius again started to question Mr. Diles about the whereabouts of the rest of it and he proceeded to pull out a knife and started to cut Mr. Diles. At that point I interfered and I told him “We have got everything we need here. Let’s go.”

    Q: After that what happened?
    A: After that I opened the front door, signaled to Mr. McCourt. He started to back the vehicle up. Subsequently I told him to stop and then Mr. Deverell and Mr. Launius and myself, in that order, proceeded out the front door.

    Q: Taking items from the house?
    A: Yes. Mr. Launius was carrying the attaché case which he had put the bag of cocaine in and the gray-green metal box and I, I think he had the heroin vial in his pocket. I came out last carrying the two antique rifles which were wrapped in a white plastic like a shower curtain. They were concealed. I had those.

    Q: At that time did you all get into the car?
    A: Yes, we did.

    Q: Where did you go to?
    A: At that time Mr. Deverell got into the front passenger side. Mr. McCourt was driving the vehicle and Mr. Launius and I were in back. We drove to the Wonderland Avenue address.

    Q: Where was the defendant Holmes when you got to the Wonderland address?

    A: Mr. Holmes was waiting inside the door when we arrived. On the living room side of that area which is a small foyer there, the right hand side leads to the kitchenette and the rest is living room. It is on a split level. The first thing that Mr. Holmes wanted to know was just exactly what happened. He seemed to be very excited about it. He was happy that we were able to accomplish
    what we set out to do. At that time I instructed Mr. Launius not to tell him anything.

    Q: What happened after that?
    A: Mr. Launius proceeded to talk to him.

    Q: In your presence was Defendant Holmes told of the incident?
    A: He certainly was.

    Q: Were the proceeds of the robbery split up in any way at this time?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Would you describe how that was done?
    A: Immediately upon entering the house we went to the rear bedroom on the first level there, which was Mr. Launius’s bedroom in the rear.

    Q: What happened next?
    A: We put everything on the bed and everybody was in the bedroom and there, of course, there was quite a bit of excitement because of the situation and then I said “Well, let’s get this over with” and we proceeded to the nook area … a glass top table top and we proceeded to, we had a scale in the residence. We proceeded to weigh out the drugs and to count the money at that time.

    Q: Where was the defendant Holmes during this time?
    A: He was sitting in the chair.
    THE COURT: Indicating (on the chart) the chair to the left of the glass top table closest to the room marked bathroom number one.
    THE WITNESS: Mr. Launius was sitting here
    THE COURT: Indicating the chair to the south of the
    table marked number six closest to the kitchen.
    THE WITNESS: Mr. McCourt was sitting here.
    THE COURT: Indicating the chair to the east of the
    table closest to the stairs.
    THE WITNESS: Mr. Deverell was sitting here
    THE COURT: Indicating the chair north of the table just below the word “nook.”
    THE WITNESS: Mr. Holmes was alternately between these two chairs (indicating) and this chair
    THE COURT: Indicating the chair below “nook”, the chair closest to the stairs and the chair that is south of the table closest to the kitchen.

    Q: How were the booty – for lack of a better term –
    split up?
    A: There were five of us involved in the robbery. Mr. Launius, Mr. Deverell, and myself, were to receive 25 percent of what we took and Mr. Holmes and Mr. McCourt were to split the remaining 25 percent which is 12 and a half percent.

    Q: And is that of the drugs and the money?
    A: Yes. That is correct.

    Q: What happened after the items were split up?
    A: Immediately after everything was divided up Mr. McCourt left the residence and Mr. Launius and Mr. Holmes and myself were seated in the living room and at that time Mr. Holmes made a statement to the effect that it still wasn’t enough money; he didn’t have enough to pay his film editors and as there was still a considerable amount of jewelry to be peddled to a fence, that he was going to wait around for that money.

    Q: What happened next?
    A: Subsequently Mr. Deverell took the jewelry to the fence and came back a few hours later with the money, which was early evening.

    Q: Mr. Holmes remained in the residence?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Until that time?
    A: Yes.

    Q: What happened after that?
    A: Everybody was in a pretty good mood after the success of the incident and we proceeded to just have a good time.

    Q: Did you use the narcotics?
    A: Yes. I have on occasion.

    Q: I mean, when you said “have a good time” –
    A: Yes, that is correct. Yes. Everybody did.

    Q: At sometime did either you or the defendant Holmes leave the residence?
    A: I don’t remember when John left. I do remember when I left.

    Q: Did the defendant Holmes leave before you, if you recall?
    A: I don’t recall.

    Q: When did you leave?
    A: I left approximately 9:00 or 10:00 o’clock the next morning.

    Q: That is June 30th?
    A: Yes. That is correct.

    Q: And was that the last time you saw any of the occupants of the residence alive?
    A: Yes it was.

    Q: (indicating the chart) Was this the front door of the residence?
    A: That is the front door.

    Q: Yes?
    A: Yes.

    Q: (indicating) Is that the back door of the residence?
    A: Yes. That is the rear door to the bedroom.

    Q: Are those the only two entrances to this residence on Wonderland?
    A: Yes, that is correct.

    Q: And you were residing there around June 29?
    A: Yes I was.

    Q: What was the security arrangements there? And by that I mean, were there any special procedures as to who could enter and who could not?
    A: Yes. Number one, there was an electric gate that could be only entered with a key or by pressing a buzzer inside the residence and then identify yourself to open the electric gate.
    Number two, after we exited the robbery we had all agreed nobody was to come into the house at all, period, even people we knew that had any business, meaning drug-related business, that was to be conducted was to be conducted away from the house and directed to the Laurel Canyon Country Store, which is on Laurel Canyon.

    Q: Could someone who is known to the occupants enter the residence?
    A: Only someone who was known very well.

    Q: Of this pact that you made as a resident of the Wonderland address at 8763 –
    A: Yes?

    Q: — was the defendant Holmes known well enough to you that he would be allowed entry?
    A: Most definitely.

    Q: I have nothing further.
    Jim Morrison referred to the Laurel Canyon Country Store in a song as “the store where all
    the creatures meet.” He lived on nearby Rothdell Trail at the time.

    FEBRUARY 2, 1982

    Q: Mr. Lind, would you direct your attention to the diagram which is at your left? That is the diagram of the Wonderland house? Can you tell us, sir, when was the first time you ever
    went into that house?

    A: I believe it was the first week of June 1981.

    Q All right. Prior to that time, to your knowledge, you had never been there?
    A: No, sir.

    Q: And from the time you went there from the first week in June did you live there off and on until the incidents transpired that you testified to just before the lunch hour?

    A: I was in residence there continuously throughout the incidents.

    Q: That would have been, then, for a two or three week period?

    A: Yes, that is correct.

    Q: Can you tell us if there were any permanent residents of that location during the two to three week period besides yourself?
    A: Permanent meaning …. ?

    Q: Who was living there, who was sleeping there?
    A: Joy Miller, William Deverell, Ronald Launius, Barbara Richardson and myself.

    Q: Did anybody else during that period of time ever spend the night there?
    A: Quite a number of people.

    Q: I take it, people would come and people would go. Is that correct?
    A: Yes. That is correct.

    Q: Did you known by name all of the people that came and went?
    A: No. Not all of them

    Q: You knew a percentage of them?
    A: Yes.
    Q: Now, when you say, Mr. Lind, that there was a, I think you said large number, quite a number of people, could you be more precise? Is that a dozen or two dozen or how many would that be?
    A: I have no idea. It varied. We were engaged in drug trafficking and it varied.

    Q: I take it, then, as far as you observed, people perhaps unknown to you would come to that location, engage in some kind of a transaction and leave the location?
    A: That could very well be, yes.

    Q: And this would be both during the daylight and the nighttime hours?
    A: Nighttime meaning?

    Q: After the sun goes down?
    A: Yes.

    Q: And would you say that the hours were irregular?
    A: Sometimes.

    Q: During that two or three week period that you were there at that location did you ever see Mr. Holmes at that location?
    A: Yes, I did.

    Q: Would you say that you saw him there on several occasions?
    A: More than that.

    Q: All right. Directing your attention, sir, to the area that I think you described and that appears to be labeled on the map “nook” did you ever see John Holmes in that area?
    A: Yes, I did.

    Q: Did you ever see him sit down at the table?
    A: Yes, I have.

    Q: Now, there is a kitchen in that nook area. Is that correct?
    A: Kitchen immediately behind it. Did you ever see John Holmes cooking food there?

    A: He might have. I don’t recall specifically, no.
    Q: But do you recall distinctly seeing him at least on one and perhaps more occasions in the area of the nook?
    A: John was welcome at that house any time.

    Q: Now, did you ever see him in the bedroom that is labeled, it would be bedroom closet to you and at the bottom of the chart?
    A: Yes.

    Q: That bedroom number is number one?
    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Did you see him in that bedroom?
    A: Yes, I have.

    Q: As a matter of fact, did you see John in almost any portion of that house?
    A: Yes. That would be correct.

    Q: And would you say that John was welcome in the house – was it your opinion that of he did come into the house he was, so to speak, free to roam the house if he so desired?
    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Prior to your moving into that house for that period of time, did you know John Holmes?
    A: No.

    Q: You met John Holmes through someone connected with the house? Is that correct?
    A: Yes, Mr. Launius.

    Q: And was it your observation that Mr. Launius and John Holmes were friends?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Now, were there other people that you mentioned, were living there, Joy and Barbara and Mr. Deverell?
    A: Yes. That is correct.

    Q: Did it appear from your observations that Mr. Holmes knew these people?
    A: Yes, he did.

    Q: And did it appear that Mr. Holmes was friendly with those people?
    A: Yes. To a certain extent Mr. Deverell really didn’t care for Mr. Holmes that much, didn’t trust Mr. Holmes.

    Q: But did he outwardly appear friendly?
    A: Oh yes. Only because of Mr. Launius.

    Q: I see. Launius was personally very friendly with John Holmes?
    A: He knew him quite well.

    Q: Okay. Now, did John Holmes ever stay overnight at that location?
    A: He stayed overnight but he didn’t sleep.

    Q: But he would be there, apparently, from sundown to sunrise?
    A: Yes, a number of hours.

    Q: When was it, sir, that any conversation was first had in which you participated concerning a planned robbery of the home of Mr. Nash?
    A: Approximately a week before the robbery transpired.

    Q: When did the robbery take place?
    A: On a Monday morning at 9:00 o’clock about, Monday morning. That would be July first. Is that – I’m — – as far as the dates are concerned I’m a little confused.

    Q: I understand. I’m just asking for your best recollection.
    A: Yes. I remember the time.

    Q: And apparently there had been some discussions the week preceding. Is that correct?
    A: Yes. Just about every day.

    Q: During that week did you have any conflicts with John Holmes? Did you have any arguments or
    disagreements with him?
    A: No. I never did.

    Q: Did John mainly talk with Mr. Launius or did he talk with you or was it amongst all the people?
    A: He spoke with Launius and myself. Mr. Launius and my girlfriend, Barbara, and Joy Miller. As I said, there was a rather strained relationship between Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deverell.

    Q: With regards to this planned robbery, was Joy present during any of the discussion concerning the robbery?
    A: Yes, she was.

    Q: Barbara also?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Was anybody else in on it besides the people you just mentioned?
    A: Mr. Tracy McCourt.

    Q: Anybody else?
    A: No, sir. At that time, no. Nobody else had any knowledge of it. To my knowledge.

    Q: And the robbery commenced, apparently, when you, Mr. McCourt, Mr. Deverell, and Mr. Launius left in a vehicle together to go toward Ed Nash’s home? Is that correct?
    A: Yes. That is correct.

    Q: Were you carrying a gun?
    A: Yes, I was. We were all armed.

    Q: What kind of a gun were you carrying?
    A: A Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum Model 94, stainless steel revolver.

    Q: Were you carrying any other kind of weapon?
    A: Yes. I was carrying a knife.

    Q: And this would be a pocket knife or a hunting knife?
    A: No. It was a rigid model knife, was a razor back. It was a hunting knife, approximately, the blade was at least eight inches long. Total length approximately 12 inches.

    Q: About the size of a bayonet?
    A: No.

    Q: Not that?
    A: About half the size of a bayonet.

    Q: What was Mr. Deverell carrying?
    A: Mr. Deverell had a Model 59 Smith and Wesson 14 shot nine millimeter pistol.

    Q: Do you recall what the other two were carrying?
    A: Yes, I certainly do. Mr. Launius had a 7.5 millimeter Beretta automatic pistol and Mr. McCourt had a Colt, National Match Gold Cup, 45 automatic pistol.

    Q: Now, was there any conversation as to what precautions, if any, would be taken not to injure anybody?
    A: No. The only conversation that was pertaining to people in the house were that Mr. Diles would be the one that we would be most seriously concerned with.

    Q: What I’m saying is, did you discuss the fact that you didn’t want to hurt anybody?
    A: Yes, that is true. There was no reason for that. The way it was laid out we were just going to go in and out.

    Q: Now, were any precautions taken as far as you know to conceal your identity from anyone you might find at the Nash residence?
    A: No, none were necessary. Nobody had, at the Nash residence, had had any familiarity whatsoever with Mr. Launius or Mr. Deverell or myself, to my knowledge, at that time, other than John Holmes. There was no need for it.

    Q: At least you felt secure that you would not be known on sight?
    A: Very.

    Q: You didn’t wear any kind of mask?
    A: None whatsoever.

    Q: Did you wear anything on your hands to eliminate the likelihood of fingerprints?
    A: Yes, there was a product on the market called “Liquid Band-Aid”, we put that on our fingertips, all of us.

    Q: Was that done at –
    A: The Wonderland residence.

    Q: — Wonderland residence?
    A: That’s right.

    Q: Was John Holmes present when that was done?
    A: Yes. He was.

    Q: You went to the residence and apparently a robbery did take place? Is that correct?
    A: You are speaking of Mr. Nash’s residence?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Apparently, from my understanding of your testimony, Mr. Lind, the shot that was fired at the Nash residence was an accidental shot?
    A: Yes, it was. I just discharged the weapon.

    Q: You did not intend to hit or shoot at Mr. Diles?
    A: No, sir.

    Q: Did Mr. Diles react in any way when he was shot?
    A: Yes. He made an exclamation.

    Q: Did he threaten anybody?
    A: Not at that time. No.

    Q: At some point later, apparently, somebody was either cutting or attempting to cut Mr. Diles? Is that correct?
    A: That is correct.

    Q: And who was that?
    A: Mr. Launius.

    Q: Did Mr. Launius carry with him a knife?
    A: No.

    Q: Was this your knife?
    A: Yes.

    Q: How did your knife happen to come into the possession of Mr. Launius?
    A: I gave it to Mr. Launius. He asked for it.

    Q: Was that for the purpose of, so to speak, getting somebody to talk?
    A: I have no idea.

    Q: Now, was Mr. Nash struck or injured in any way?
    A: No, he was not struck physically.

    Q: Was he placed on the ground and told to pray?
    A: No.

    Q: Did you ever see him on the ground praying?
    A: I recall Mr. Nash on his knees and asking if he could say a prayer.

    Q: But your recollection is that no one told him that he better start praying or something might happen?

    A: No, sir.

    Q: Prior to going on that robbery did you ingest any narcotics of any sort?
    A: None.

    Q: How about Mr. Deverell?
    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Do you know from your own observation what he had consumed or ingested?
    A: Yes. Heroin.

    Q: And how about Mr. McCourt?
    A: Mr. McCourt also.

    Q: How about Mr. Launius?
    A: Mr. Launius also.

    Q: Everyone but you, apparently, had a shot of heroin?
    A: That is correct.

    Q: I take it you don’t use heroin?
    A: I didn’t at that time. No.

    Q: Did you use any other form of narcotic or stimulant?
    A: Cocaine.

    Q: When you came back to the residence – that is the Wonderland residence – Mr. Holmes was still there? Is that correct?
    A: Yes. That is correct.

    Q: Is it your recollection that the events that transpired at the Nash residence were related to Mr.
    A: Would you mind repeating –

    Q: I’m sorry. What I’m trying to ask you is: When you came back from the Nash residence to the
    Wonderland residence you saw Mr. Holmes?
    A: That is correct.

    Q: And Mr. Holmes was told by somebody in detail what happened at the Nash residence?
    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Who did that?
    A: Mr. Launius.

    Q: Launius was the one that was apparently, of the people involved, closest to Mr. Holmes from the friendship standpoint?
    A: Yes.

    Q: After coming back to the Wonderland address did anyone in your presence make known the fact to any of the other persons outside that group that a robbery had taken place?
    A: No, sir.

    Q: Didn’t Launius get on the phone and announce that he had some narcotics for sale?
    A: That was an every day occurrence. The use of the telephone for that particular – that is what he did. He dealt in narcotics.

    Q: What I’m asking you is: When you came back to the Wonderland address, part of the loot that was brought back was narcotics. Is that correct?
    A: Yes, that is correct.

    Q: And all I’m asking you is: Do you have any specific recollection of Mr. Launius thereafter notifying party of parties unknown to you, perhaps, that he had narcotics for sale?
    A: Yes, I do.

    Q: And how did you know that?
    A: I was standing in the bedroom.

    Q: And he got on the phone?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Did he, in your presence, indicate where he had obtained the narcotics?
    A: No, sir.

    Q: Were there any telephone conversations by Mr. Launius that were not in your presence?

    MR. COEN: Well, Your Honor, that is going to call for a conclusion. I object.
    THE COURT: Sustained.

    Q: So if it happened you wouldn’t know?
    A: That is correct.

    Q: What I’m asking you: Did you make a point of just bird-dogging Mr. Launius to see who he called or why he called or what he said?
    A: No, sir.

    Q: But, did you have an occasion to notice that he was making phone calls, at least in your presence, and announcing that he had some narcotics available?
    A: That is true.

    Q: Did you continue to reside at the Wonderland address?
    A: Yes. Although I was making preparations to leave.

    Q: You were going back to Sacramento, weren’t you?
    A: That is correct.

    Q: Now, on the day that the killing took place, multiple killings took place there at the Wonderland
    address, it is your testimony that you weren’t there. Is that correct?
    A: That is correct.

    Q: To your knowledge, did the participants in the robbery of the Nash residence all have the guns with them that they had used in that robbery?
    A: Yes.

    Q: I don’t mean to be facetious, but as far as you know, were the guns all equipped with ammunition?
    A: Yes, they were.

    Q: To your knowledge no one went on that robbery with an empty gun?
    A: No, sir.

    Q: Were any of those guns ever displayed in the presence of Mr. Holmes?
    A: All of them at one time or another.

    Q: So your conclusion, then, would be that Mr. Holmes knew the occupants or some of the occupants in that house were armed with guns? Is that correct?
    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Aside from the guns that each had were there other guns in the Wonderland address that you knew of?
    A: I had never seen any others than those that were carried by people that would come to the Wonderland address until after the robbery. Meaning other weapons.

    Q: From the time you returned from the robbery until the time that you left the Wonderland address on the last occasion did the narcotic traffic continue?
    A: Not at the house. No.

    Q: Your recollection is that no one came during that period to engage in any kind of transaction, that at least, you observed?
    A: No, sir. Not one.

    Q: Were you there continuously?
    A: I was there until Tuesday morning, approximately 9:00 or 10:00 o’clock.

    Q: Is Tuesday morning in your mind the day of the killing?
    A: No.

    Q: When did you find out about the killing?
    A: I received a phone call.

    Q: Who did you receive a phone call from?
    A: A Mr. Jimmy Arias, I believe it’s A-R-I-A-S.

    Q: Did you have a conversation with a Mr. Vegas?
    A: That is an AKA.

    Q: Vegas and Arias are the same person?
    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Now, Vegas called you and told you there had been a killing?
    A: He called me and told me that everybody on Wonderland Avenue in the house was dead.

    Q: How long had you been out of the Wonderland address?
    A: As I stated before, I left about 9:00 or 10:00 Tuesday and, I believe, this was shortly around before noon Wednesday. I’m not sure. I know it was about 12:00 o’clock.

    Q: You stayed some place else during that period? Is that correct?
    A: Yes, I did.

    Q: And was Barbara with you?
    A: No, she wasn’t.

    Q: Barbara was your girlfriend?
    A: Yes.

    Q: And she stayed at the Wonderland address?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Did you go back to Sacramento, did you?
    A: No, sir.

    Q: You stayed somewhere in the Los Angeles area?
    A: Yes. Monrovia, to be specific.

    Q: Did you go to a motel or something?
    A: No. To a private residence of a friend of mine.

    Q: Who was that?
    A: A Mr. James Fuller.

    Q: Do you recall talking to the officers, telling them of your visits during the time shortly preceding the killing on Wonderland?

    A: Shortly preceding?

    Q: Yes. Before?
    A: What period of time?

    Q: The night before?
    A: Yes, I do. I made a statement.

    Q: Do you recall telling them you were with a couple of girls?
    A: Yes.

    Q: You spent the night with one named Terry and/or Cindy?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Is that true?
    A: Yes. They gave me a ride back to the San Fernando Valley. We had stayed up all night.

    Q: And then you just stayed there with them?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Now, when Vegas called you did Vegas give you to understand that he was calling from the
    Wonderland address?
    A: No. He didn’t.

    Q: Did he give you to understand that he had actually been in the residence?
    A: Yes. At 8:00 o’clock that morning.

    Q: And –
    A: Meaning the morning of the murders.

    Q: And that he saw bodies?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Did he tell you how he got in?
    A: He told me he walked in. The doors were open.

    Q: Did he tell you if he saw anybody else there?
    A: Anybody else meaning?

    Q: Anybody else other than the people that were injured or killed?
    A: He was there with a fellow by the name of Paul. That is who drove him over.

    Q: Mr. Vegas indicated to you why they had gone to that residence?
    A: Yes. They were supposed to put Mr. Launius on a plane that morning to appear in a case in Sacramento.

    Q: I only have a couple more questions, Mr. Lind.
    A: Yes.

    Q: Are you at the present time in custody?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Why are you in custody?
    A: I’m serving a seven month sentence in Sacramento.

    Q: Had you ever been convicted of a felony, Mr. Lind?
    A: Yes, I have.

    Q: How many?
    A: Two.

    Q: And can you tell me which felonies those are?
    A: Yes. Receiving stolen property – I beg your pardon, that would be three. Receiving stolen property and forgery and assault with intent to commit rape. That was in 1970.

    Q: What were you just sentenced for?
    A: I was sentenced for possession of a controlled substance.

    MR. HANSON: I have nothing further.
    THE COURT: Redirect?
    MR. COEN: Just one question, if I may?
    BY MR. COEN:
    Q: Mr. Lind, did you ever hear Ron Launius threaten the defendant? If you recall?
    A: Meaning Mr. Holmes?

    Q: Yes.
    A: Yes, I did.

    Q: What did he say?
    A: He made mention of the fact that Mr. Holmes owed he and Mr. Deverell a considerable sum of money and that he better do something about it and, as a matter of fact, in, he threatened John Holmes on more than one occasion. Ronnie was, he had a Jeckyll-Hyde personality.
    He was on again, off again.

    MR. COEN: I have nothing further.
    THE COURT: Recross?
    MR. HANSON: Yes.

    Q: Was this Jeckyll-Hyde personality in any way, as far as you observed, related to narcotics usage?
    A: Not to my knowledge.

    MR. COEN: Objection. This calls for a conclusion, a medical conclusion.
    MR. HANSON: I will withdraw the question in light
    of the answer. I have nothing further.
    THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
    THE WITNESS: Thank you.

    • Eric B. 9:35 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      BRAVO! I can imagine how the movie may have played out if these facts were taken into consideration, but I understand how certain changes can make for greater cinema. This fills a lot of holes and unanswered questions though.

    • localarts 10:05 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      It was a tough day for Gregory. First Lind “graze’s him with a gunshot blast and then Ronnie try’s to dry shave him!

      • John 10:09 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        Hahaa. I think Holmes should have been there with Greg and Ed, to distract attention from himself. Maybe Lind pistol whips him into submission. Ed and Greg would have followed the wrong scent and not killed the Gang.

      • Bobby 11:53 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        I know right! All the poor guy wanted to do was just peacefully eat his breakfast tray full of donuts in bed.

      • John 1:33 pm on July 23, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        I like how Lind refers to “one Edward Nash”…which he assumed was his full name. It was just a nickname… just funny to me for some reason.

    • Bobby 11:46 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Man, what a fantastic read. Lind sure knew his firearms! I was of the understanding that Launius didn’t have a good relationship with Holmes but didn’t realise that Deverell really had it in for him. Things could’ve been so different had he just listened to his gut instinct all along. A mixture of anger and regret must’ve flashed before him the moment he opened the door on that fateful night and saw that the figure before him didn’t fit the voice on the intercom.. That whiney whinging “I need more money to pay my editors” voice that he’d came to hate. This has gotta go down as one of your best posts John! So many fascinating tidbits scattered throughout… Just leaves ya chomping at the bit wanting more!… 😉

      • John 12:03 pm on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        I need to pay my editors… LOL. Kick ass!!

    • Jenn 2:06 pm on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      This definitely sheds more light on things for me. Awesome post!

      • localarts 4:20 pm on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        This was such an incredible laps in judgment. It kinda makes me wonder how their lives would have turned out if they would have never befriended Holmes.

    • Anthony 6:10 pm on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Lind was an articulate person.

      • Jenn 6:53 pm on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        He was! Everything else that I read about him made him out to be some total uneducated prison graduate degenerate slime ball and that in court he was like “Ok man, dig it like this…” or whatever he said but it was along those lines. Maybe he was like that in the second trial after time, guilt, and bitter memories had caught up with him. He was probably pissed that John Holmes was acquitted.

    • localarts 7:34 pm on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      I honestly believe David Lind didn’t give a shit about anything or anybody when the 89 prelim rolled around. The truth starts to come into focus when you compare McCourt’s 1982 testimony. I know I’ve said that several times but David Linds 1989 preliminary testimony sealed it for me. Besides, by that point in his life, Lind seemed to be a broken man with nothing to lose.

    • patrick 8:00 pm on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      I’m amazed that they didn’t bother to at least throw on some ski masks or make any attempts to conceal their identities considering they were living no more than a couple miles from Nash. Certain neighborhoods of LA are like small towns in that you can run into people more frequently than you think. I’m guessing Launius et al were frequent customers at the canyon store. Even if Holmes hadn’t ratted on them who’s to say that they wouldn’t be spotted & recognized by Nash or Diles dropping in to buy cigarettes or out somewhere on the streets of Hollywood?

      • John 9:20 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, I guess that is why Ron, Billy and Tracy all planned to move asap after the robbery. But, they got high instead and forgot to.

      • Bobby 9:52 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        That’s a fair point Patrick. I guess the fact that they threw a rug over Diles’ head so that he couldn’t see what was going on was the only real precaution they took at concealing their identities. The robbery would have come as such a huge surprise to Nash & Diles that they probably didn’t really have much of a chance to get a good look at the gang. I’m sure with all the gun waving and shouting the last thing Nash would have wanted to do was make eye contact with them. In most armed robberies you’ll find that victims try not to look at the aggressors so as to try and diffuse any escalation in tension. I’d bet that Nash/Diles only had a very hazy memory of their faces.. but then again, probably just enough for them to recognise them at the Laural Canyon country store!

    • Myrna Forcade 2:04 am on February 6, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      nice article, thanks

    • bobabooie 9:59 am on May 30, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      This makes no sense. The Wonderland gang robbed probably the most connected guy in Hollywood- without masks yet- and along with cash and drugs, took back their own loot that they had previously left for collateral, which would certainly help Nash identify them, then they immediately set up shop dealing small quantities of narcotics at a popular convenience store where they can be seen in public that is less than two miles away from the robbery. Definitely a case of drugs impairing one’s judgement.

    • Richard 10:56 am on October 24, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      Wow, awesome. Thanks for taking the time to post all that.

    • John 9:47 pm on August 23, 2020 Permalink | Reply

  • John 8:40 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: david lind testimony, wonderland preliminary trial   

    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.

    * * * * * * * * * * * *


    Called as a witness by the People, was sworn and testified as follows:

    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

    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

    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!

    • Jenn 9:33 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      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.

      • John 11:07 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        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.

        • 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.

    • Bonnie Brae 11:03 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      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.

      • John 11:09 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        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.

      • localarts 3:25 pm on June 24, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        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.

    • localarts 11:43 am on June 24, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      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.

      • Jenn 1:32 pm on June 24, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        I agree with you. I think they TOTALLY knew who they were robbing.

      • John 5:19 pm on June 24, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        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.

        • Jenn 11:29 pm on June 24, 2013 Permalink

          I’d like to see that myself. I think it deeply effected him.

        • localarts 4:22 pm on June 25, 2013 Permalink

          No doubt. I’m sure Lind was constantly looking over his soldier.

      • Bobby 12:39 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        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!

        • John 8:38 am on June 25, 2013 Permalink

          Classic observations, bro! I’m going to google earth that address again!

      • John 9:23 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        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.

    • localarts 11:47 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      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.

    • Olds 11:05 am on July 10, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      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.

    • lucian 3:46 pm on September 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      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.

    • John 9:45 pm on August 23, 2020 Permalink | Reply

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc