Tagged: earl hanson Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • John 9:59 am on February 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: earl hanson,   

    Porno Star To Stand Trial In Laurel Canyon Killings 

    My apologies for the bleached out old news photo but it was the best I could find. Now I have been in court a few times, but when I do, I button my shirt up. Outstanding. I’m pretty sure that John wore that same borrowed tan jacket for most of the trial. I read that somewhere. It is nice to have a good attorney like Earl Hanson, who attacks the system (and for free!). If something like this happened today, or even the early 90s, the cable news shows would go nuts. It would be like O.J. or Menendez all over again.

    John Holmes stated in his audio tapes with Porn King writer, Fred E. Basten, that he had slept in that house several times, and also in that back bedroom. Just having been in that house before would provide reasonable doubt. The “bloody hand print” on the bed rail that has so often been discussed in articles were prints that were overlaid with blood spatter or drops. Most likely the prints were there before the murders. Without that so-called evidence, the prosecution only had Tomlinson or Lange to provide testimony that John was even there. The jury needed more, and although they may have thought Holmes was involved, it was not enough to convict (according to Nils Grevillius). As one juror stated, “We needed more than Detective Tomlinson saying Holmes told him he was there. We did not have that”.

    Also, Julia Negron and her kids stayed at Joy’s and used that back bedroom, before Ron Launius moved in. I bet that 50+ sets of different prints were pulled from that house.

    Associated Press. February 3, 1982.

    holmes-hanson

    holmes-hanson2

     

     
    • jimmy---chicago 5:35 pm on February 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      Too bad sharon kept her mouth shut. She had to be a screwball putting up with that situation with dawn and john

    • localarts 5:55 pm on February 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      I’m not an attorney but I believe a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other. They can however volunteer to testify. As much as I hate to say this, Sharon has only herself to blame for all the
      hurt and upheaval Holmes caused her. She should have kicked his ass to the curb.

      Sharon might have been traumatized by the whole thing, you just never know.

    • criticextraordinaire 7:26 pm on February 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      I believe Ronnie’s name was indeed “Ronnie” and not “Ronald”.

    • jimmy---chicago 7:33 pm on February 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      That is the law . The whole thing is im liberal (not obama liberal) and I can’t wrap my head around sharon,john and dawn the whole situation sharon never seemed to ever want john back after he decided to choose porn over her but she knew he was a pedofile due to dawns age and that whole dynamic between them ,well I don’t know it’s desgusting how decreped does it have to get.At least she should have opened her mouth to the right authorities after holmes died .

      • criticextraordinaire 8:09 pm on February 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        Sharon didn’t know that John and Dawn were getting it on. At least while she (Dawn) was underage. Besides, Sharon was Italian and knew better than to rat anybody out to the cops. The only time she ever called the cops was to dispose of that dead guy who ill-advisedly tried to break in to Sharon’s place.

    • Jill C. Nelson 8:19 pm on February 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      The tan jacket and the entire wardrobe (including shoes) that Holmes wore during his trial were purchased by his girlfriend, director Julia St. Vincent who was present every single day of his trial.

      Once again, the left palm print was not bloody. Erroneously, reports at the time stated that it was. Earl Hanson clarified that mistake when he was interviewed for WADD.

      • Jill C. Nelson 8:51 pm on February 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        Correction: It was Hanson’s partner, Mitchell Egers who stated in his interview for WADD: “I remember very clearly that the prosecutor, now Judge Ron Coen stated in his closing argument that there was a bloody fingerprint I believe, on the headboard near one of the victims. That was not correct. It had to be corrected before the jury. There was no bloody fingerprints. I remember quite clearly, that was the impression that some had in the courtroom before it was clarified by the defense.” – Mitchell Egers

        • John 11:04 am on February 26, 2014 Permalink

          Thanks for that quote. Geez, Coen had a weak case. Would love to have the real trial transcript.

    • Mike 9:37 pm on February 25, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      “Sharon was Italian and knew better than to rat anybody out to the cops.” C’mon – no offense but that’s way off base.

      “The only time she ever called the cops was to dispose of that dead guy who ill-advisedly tried to break in to Sharon’s place.” That’s an absurd story she concocted and it doesn’t hold water. I presume she made it up, and not Dawn; who knows. Again, no offense meant.

      • criticextraordinaire 3:38 pm on February 26, 2014 Permalink | Reply

        Hey, Sharon herself said that she told John that if he raised a hand against her (words to the effect) “I’m Italian and you’re gonna have to go to sleep some time.” She knew how that game was played.

        Sharon has always been seen as a very credible source, so I don’t have much reason to doubt the dead body. Or the gold-encrusted foot locker story either.

  • John 9:30 am on June 12, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: earl hanson, john holmes attorney,   

    Holmes’ Attorney Earl Hanson Died in April, 2000 

    Earl L. Hanson, a prominent criminal defense attorney who successfully defended pornography star John Holmes, has died. He was 67.

    Hanson, leading criminal defense attorney who won acquittal of murder charges for the late porno star John Holmes, and represented about 3,000 other people during his four-decade career, has died, said his law partner, Mitchell W. Egers.

    Egers said the athletic marathon runner Hanson died Saturday of a heart attack during a regular fitness run in Glendale.

    Hanson, highly respected in the legal community for his impeccable ethical standards and his persuasiveness, had recently been named attorney of the year by the Criminal Justice Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.

    It looks like Earl defended some of L.A.’s most notorious characters… see below:

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

    Earl L. Hanson; Criminal Defense Attorney

    by Myrna Oliver. LA Times. April 5, 2000

    The veteran trial lawyer’s case file read like an anthology of Southern California crime.

    For more than a year, he was the court-appointed defender of “Freeway Killer” William G. Bonin, who was charged in 1980 with murdering and raping 16 boys in Orange and Los Angeles counties. Bonin, who insisted on switching to another lawyer for his trial, confessed to 21 killings, was convicted in 14 and was put to death in 1996.

    In 1982, there was the Bob’s Big Boy robbery and murder case. Hanson was appointed by the court to defend Franklin Freeman Jr., one of three defendants, after Freeman’s original attorney was dismissed over conflict of interest.

    Hanson also represented Humberto de la Torre, who pleaded guilty to 25 counts of first-degree murder after setting fire to the decrepit Dorothy Mae Apartment-Hotel on Sunset Boulevard in 1982. When the man was sentenced three years later to 625 years in prison, Hanson told The Times: “At the time he did this, he had been drinking, he had smoked some marijuana and he went there in a cloudy haze with the intention of vandalism. He did not intend to hurt anybody.”

    But probably Hanson’s best-known case was that of Holmes, who was accused of murdering four people in a Laurel Canyon house on July 1, 1981. After a three-week trial in 1982, Hanson and Egers won a jury verdict of not guilty for Holmes. Although Holmes’ former wife testified that he had told her he was present during the killings, Holmes never took the stand in his own trial and never publicly described what happened. After his acquittal, Holmes spent 110 days in Los Angeles County Jail for refusing to testify about the real killers for a grand jury. He finally did go before the grand jury, but his testimony was sealed.

    “We have never heard the whole truth [about the killings] and we never will hear the whole truth,” Hanson told The Times a month after Holmes died of AIDS in 1988. Later that year, two other men were charged with the murders.

    Egers, who shared Hanson’s downtown law firm for 36 years, said he considered Hanson the finest criminal defense lawyer in the state and one of the finest lawyers anywhere.

    Hanson grew up in Los Angeles and was a varsity soccer star at UCLA. He went on to earn a law degree at USC and serve in the Army as a member of the prestigious Airborne Rangers.

    He is survived by his wife, Marina; a sister, Virginia Frier; and three adult sons, Eric, Kevin and Leif.

    A memorial service is scheduled Thursday at noon in Forest Lawn Glendale.

     
    • localarts 12:32 pm on June 12, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      “We have never heard the whole truth [about the killings] and we never will hear the whole truth,”

      You can thank Holmes for that.

    • dreamweaverjenn 7:39 pm on June 12, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      It sounds like this guy was a cracker jack at what he did but I can’t help but wonder that if the Wonderland People were more ‘upstanding’ or at least not had the criminal reputation that they did, the jury might have just found Holmes guilty? Just a thought. Who knows. The only people still here that know won’t ever tell unless Nash one day has a deathbed confession. But he will outlive everybody and survive with cockroaches and twinkies!

    • localarts 8:50 pm on June 12, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      I’m convienced the two most difficult things to find is the David Lind interview on the Morton Downey Jr show and a copy of Holmes college degrees.

    • krislyn 7:05 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      hi. Did John.go to college? i know he mentioned it in many interviews but he was a compulsive liar. a few articles that came after stated he was lying. Bill Amerson in Wadd stated that henever went to college UCLA nothing that was BS. are there records that he was enrolled?

    • localarts 7:51 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Damn right John had those degrees. As a matter of fact Laurie Holmes said John wanted to pursue his doctorate degree in pediatrics but blew his money on drugs. I believe Lt. Ron Lewis of the LAPD said Holmes was planning of filming some instructional video for the forensics department, showing how someone being held against a wall could receive blood spatter inside their ears while the unknown assailants did the dirty work.

    • dreamweaverjenn 8:40 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      That’s funny! I needed that laugh this morning. 🙂 I don’t think he went to college. I think it was all part of his lies.

      • localarts 8:47 am on June 14, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        No, Holmes never went to college. Krislyn is correct, he was a pathological liar.

    • Jill Nelson 8:44 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      “It sounds like this guy was a cracker jack at what he did but I can’t help but wonder that if the Wonderland People were more ‘upstanding’ or at least not had the criminal reputation that they did, the jury might have just found Holmes guilty?”

      Holmes was acquitted because there was not sufficient evidence to convict him on four counts of first degree murder. One of the more interesting facets of his trial was the judge’s decision not to permit Holmes’ statement to police that Nash had put him under duress resulting in his leading Nash’s boys to the Wonderland house. When Holmes was being interviewed by the L.A.P.D. at the Bonaventure and Biltmore hotels, about 10 days arfter the murders, there was a heavy police protection for the entire three days including a SWAT team on the roof of the Biltmore — information which the prosecution introduced into the trial. Coen ended up shooting himself in the foot because the imposing police presence at the hotel(s) inadvertently proved duress — which was a huge victory for Holmes and his defense team.

      “Did John.go to college? i know he mentioned it in many interviews but he was a compulsive liar”

      John had part time work as a nude model at U.C.L.A. in the mid-sixties. Sharon worked in pediatrics and director Bob Chinn was a graduate from U.C.L.A. Hence, John’s “degree in pediatrics from U.C.L.A.” It’s also important to bear in mind that Bill Amerson does not always tell the truth and admitted as much when he spoke in person with Sugar.

      • dreamweaverjenn 8:49 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        Hi Jill. I know he was acquitted because there was not sufficient evidence but I wonder if he would have been convicted anyway had the Wonderland Gang been a more upstanding group. Just a speculation. I can’t wait to read your book!

      • John 2:55 pm on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        And I think to distract people away from his humble beginnings and family in Ohio, he embellished his background a bit to throw any would-be researchers off the scent.

        If I was on that jury, I would not have convicted him either. You need more evidence than what was presented by Coen. I learned to think more objectively about cases after my brother got in trouble on trumped up charges years ago and also from when I served two weeks on a jury trial. The prosecutor serves the people but is not always on the right side of justice.

        • localarts 4:15 pm on June 13, 2013 Permalink

          Based on the physical evidence..no, Holmes should not have been convicted. But hey, he bit the dust six years later so justice was served to a degree. Karma can be a real bitch.

    • localarts 9:01 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Jenn, weather or not the individuals murdered that night were upstanding or not really has little to do with the case against Holmes. If Holmes had come clean, he would have most certainly been killed but John Holmes has only himself to blame for that mess. If Holmes would have been convicted he would have rolled on Nash and much of the things that remain a mystery today would be a footnote to history.

    • dreamweaverjenn 9:06 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      True.

    • Jill Nelson 9:23 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      “Hi Jill. I know he was acquitted because there was not sufficient evidence but I wonder if he would have been convicted anyway had the Wonderland Gang been a more upstanding group. Just a speculation. I can’t wait to read your book!”

      Hi Jenn, that’s a good question. If Tom Lange and Ron Coen had had their way, Holmes would have been convicted but I believe an acquittal was the correct verdict based upon the lack of concrete evidence. Fingerprints couldn’t be time stamped in 1981. I don’t know about today. Having said that, Holmes had two very astute seasoned attorneys. It’s interesting though taking a look at history. In comparison to John Holmes there was a mountain of compelling DNA evidence against O.J. Simpson and I think most people would agree that his deceased wife Nicole Brown was considered to be an upstanding citizen. Still, O.J. skated away. Even Tom Lange confessed during our interview the only Not Guilty verdict that continues to eat away at him is Simpson’s.

      • dreamweaverjenn 10:03 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        I think that would eat away at me too. Simpson even wrote a “fictional” book about it which I’m sure just threw it in everybody’s faces that he got away with murder.

    • krislyn 9:24 am on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      interesting. i like all your thoughts?

    • krislyn 1:44 pm on June 13, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      i think OJ is guilty is guilty no doubt. but to be honest i believe from what i researched.. if he was found guilty i think our justice system would be messed up. Even though it was petty.. the defense found a reasonable doubt and used it. the criminalogist wasnt wearing gloves while holding evidence. The race card sucked but Furhamn did commit purgery jury cant overide the system because of the circumstantial stuff. even though there was suffiecent evidence because the Law enforcement contaminated many evidence and didnt do their jobs right… and furhman lying and most importantly i think if they put Brad Roberts on the stand things would have been different. but because LAPD did all these errors evidence was dismissed and a not guilty verdict was the only justice way to go. thats our system. reasonable dount will over rule some things.

      only my opinion

      • John W 7:07 pm on June 14, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        Amen. Over the years, the blunt trauma of the OJ acquittal has worn thin. The race issue, the riots etc playe a big part. The juror pool also sucked in the OJ trial. Every juror was trying to make
        Money somehow. Christopher Darden took the fall, but when/if you read his book, In Contempt, you get to see how effed up Judge Ito was, and the whole case. I found the book for $1 at a thrift store

        • Jenn 8:15 am on June 15, 2013 Permalink

          I found Marcia Clark’s book at a thrift store! It was a good book because it gave a lot of insight to the stress they were under and how OVERWHELMING the evidence against him really was. I wouldn’t have been in the prosecutor’s places for love or money. No way. Super stress.

        • Jenn 8:16 am on June 15, 2013 Permalink

          I also read O.J.’s book IF I did it and it is truly his confession. I wasn’t going to buy it but then Fred Goldman sued for the profits of the book and when he won, I bought it. Good book because I’ve never read a straight up murder confession before.

    • Jill C. Nelson 8:38 am on June 15, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      It’s nice to know that the Goldman family were able to derive some income from O.J.’s book. It’s a small consolation prize but a bit of vindication none the less. I read former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi’s book, Outrage, about Simpson’s civil trial many years ago. It was quite a different case entirely when the dog and pony show that defined the murder trial was removed from the equation. For sure, there were many mistakes (for lack of a better word) made in the initial trial that clouded validity of evidence put forth by the prosecution, not to mention, Simpson’s brilliant defense team were virtually unbeatable. On a semi-related note, in the ’70s, I had an opportunity to hear Bugliosi speak at Gueph University about the Manson trial in which he was the lead prosecutor. That was an incredible evening.

      • Jenn 9:00 am on June 15, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        I bet it was! Would love to have been there. I believe the Goldmans donated all the profits I don’t think they kept the money for themselves, well I read that somewhere and it wouldn’t surprise me at all. Mr. Goldman told O.J. (before the book) that he would give him every last dime he had to just admit what he had done.

    • krislyn 10:23 am on June 15, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      If i did it was interesting. I believe there was no Charlie. i seen an interview with Larry king where Tom Lange and Mark Furhman believe there was no Charlie either. i think OJ hoped there was a Charlie But if a Charlie did exist ..i totally believe its Jason Simpson after researching his background. But only three sets of DNA was at the crime scene OJ Nicole and Ron… and in if i did it the defense Ron put up something some sort of DNA would have been found there too. i think.

      • Jenn 11:39 am on June 15, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        I bet you’re right! I’ll have to re-read the book someday.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel