Tagged: frank tomlinson Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • John 3:38 am on November 2, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: frank tomlinson, richard szabo,   

    There Is A Chapter Titled “The Cops” 

    Long before joining the investigation into finding John Holmes in 1981, LA detective Frank Tomlinson had been involved in some major cases, like the Black Muslim shootout and brawl in 1962, as well as the Hillside Strangler case of Buono and Bianchi, among others. There was also a murder case against a Mexican Mafia member. That case is not very bizarre. What is bizarre though, is the witness in the case, Joseph Belarde Garcia, was later convicted of rape and is now known as the Central Coast Rapist.

    The late seventies found Frank involved in the Garcia witness case. Garcia was a lifelong criminal, but Tomlinson and his partner, Richard Szabo, had Joe Garcia released to police custody since Joe agreed to turn state’s witness in order to try and bring down Mexican Mafia captain Arthur Blajos, known as “Conejo” (the rabbit). While released into police custody – and upon finding they shared deep Christian beliefs – Tomlinson invited Garcia to stay at his home. Joe had even babysat Frank’s two young sons. After this chapter, Garcia committed the rape of his girlfriend’s daughter. He was caught by the mother and Garcia called Tomlinson asking what to do. Frank called the police and he was arrested. Joe Garcia was convicted and served about 8 years for this crime. Garcia was married in prison and was released in 1987. But Garcia was busted again and subsequently identified by eight more rape victims. Garcia’s rap as a serial rapist is a long story – but with few supporters calling for his release claiming he was wrongfully convicted – the evidence holds up and he is currently incarcerated at Chino, and has been in prison since 1991.

    Frank Tomlinson authored the book The First Crime Scene based on some of his investigations. Frank’s partner, the legendary LAPD cop Richard Szabo, said: “He was the most tenacious investigator I have ever known.”

    You can read more about Frank’s cases in The First Crime Scene and also Richard Szabo’s storied LAPD career in The Streets Are Blue by Gary Farmer. Both are highly rated books on Amazon. You may also read samples from both books on Google Books.

     
    • steven hatcher 9:13 pm on November 4, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      there is a interesting new blog : the sacramento outlaw , that just started yesterday . please feel free to go on del flynn productions email address to make an entry . should there be a feature film on the wonderland gang before they met john holmes ? this new blog is very interested in your opinions and ideas . the infamous porn star john holmes has had his posthumous light shine on him in movies and books . we should ask ourselves : who were the real wonderland gang ? what truths have been distorted about them ? del flynn productions want to someday make a feature documentary film about the wonderland gang , that is complex , honest , intelligent and entertaining . we don t want to show them as cardboard cutouts perpetuated by people who did not know them personally . but human beings caught in a dubious epoc . who made very bad choices together. del flynn productions does not want to steal wonderland 1981 s blog s thunder . they have done a terrific job in putting together excellent information on the wonderland gang . we will always be in this blog s debt . there will be more future work on the sacramento outlaw blog , moreover , be very patient as del flynn productions does their best in putting together a blog everybody will like . enjoy ! the new blog is also a forum for true crime buffs , who are interested in the darkness of the human spirit ! thank you for your time and consideration .

    • Jill Nelson 3:51 pm on November 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      The First Crime Scene is an excellent book. Frank Tomlinson is a wonderful person and an intimidating man, even today.

  • John 9:54 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: frank tomlinson,   

    The Testimony of Det. Frank Tomlinson, Part 1 

    Warning: The N word is used below.
    Detective Tomlinson is being questioned here by prosecutor Ron Coen.
    In part 2 tomorrow, you will read about how Holmes’ attorney, Earl Hanson, really goes after Frank…and Mr. Hanson then asks the Court to drop the case for lack of evidence.
    Motel 2
    MR. COEN: Call Detective Tomlinson.

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

    DIRECT EXAMINATION
    BY MR. COEN:
    Q: Detective Tomlinson, what is your occupation and assignment?
    A: Police officer for the City of Los Angeles assigned to Robbery-Homicide Division.
    Q: Directing your attention to the 7th of December 1981: Did you have a conversation with the defendant?
    A: Yes, I did.
    Q: Prior to that conversation did you advise the defendant of certain Constitutional rights?
    A: Yes, I did.
    Q: Was this from memory or from a card?
    A: From a card.
    Q: Do you have that card with you, sir?
    A: Yes, I do.
    Detective Frank Tomlinson, Ret., founded the Center for Biblical Counseling in Simi
    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.

    Q: You asked him if he understood his rights?
    A: Yes, I did. I had a conversation with him in regard to him understanding his rights after that.
    Q: What was said?
    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.
    Q: And at the same time, as you said earlier, he gave up his right to remain silent and he gave up his right to have an attorney present during questioning?
    A: Yes, sir.
    Q: At that time regarding this case what was said?
    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.
    He then said that he – indicating Nash – had him taken at gunpoint to the house on Wonderland and that he, he himself, knew what was going to happen there but he had no choice, that he had to set things up and let them in. He said he was there when the murders occurred but that he himself did not hurt anyone, that he was just there.

    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.

    Q: Did he tell you that he actually let the killers in so that people could die?
    A: Yes. He stated that he had no choice in going there and that he had to set things up and let them in.
    Q: Did you ask him anything regarding the killers?
    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.
    Q: Those were her words?
    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.
    Q: Basically, Detective Tomlinson, was that the conversation?
    A: Yes.
    MR. COEN: Thank you. I have nothing further.

     
    • Jenn 10:12 am on June 26, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      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 | Reply

      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 | Reply

      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 | Reply

        That is the truth! NOBODY knew him like Sharon.

      • Bobby 12:24 pm on June 26, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        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 | Reply

        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 | Reply

      Good observation John. I have no idea if Holmes were left handed or not.

      • John W 4:44 pm on June 26, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        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 | Reply

      “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.

  • John 8:44 am on June 7, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: frank tomlinson   

    1962: Frank Tomlinson In Street Fight With Black Muslims 

    Frank Tomlinson would have been about 22 or 23 in 1962. He and his partner approached some guys selling suits out of a car. They were jumped and during the melee, twenty or more Muslims streamed out of the temple and stomped and kicked Tomlinson and his partner. In the end, one Muslim lay dead. This would have been a great episode for Adam-12!

    I wonder if Frank is still a counselor or minister at the church in SoCal? Man, he should write a book about his interesting career.

    * * * * * * * *

    The officer who was wounded was Frank Tomlinson, whose left elbow was shattered by a shot fired by one of the Muslims who wrested a gun away from one of the other officers…

    Star News. April 29, 1962.

    Star News. April 29, 1962.

     

     
    • localarts 12:04 pm on June 7, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Tough guy.

    • Jill C. Nelson 3:20 pm on June 7, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Frank Tomlinson has written at least one book detailing his former career as an L.A.P.D. homicide detective: “Lessons of Life Learned at Crime Scenes of Death”. Tomlinson was my first interview for “Inches” and I’ll never forget him or our meeting. He had been reluctant to be interviewed for the book because of past experiences with journalists and the media so I had to assure him we were biographers, first and foremost, and that it was our intention to be as honest and balanced as we could possibly be. That assurance seemed to convince him to agree to participate.

      By the time I came on board as a collaborator on the book in 2006, Sugar, 25 years my junior, was already a seasoned researcher and interviewer. Although we’d forged our partnership several months earlier, we didn’t meet in person until the summer of 2007. On that day I picked up Sugar from Huntington Beach where she was staying and we had a lunch date in Hollywood with Frank Tomlinson and his beautiful wife, Dianne. In person, Tomlinson is intimidating. He stands approximately 6’3″ and is extremely fit for a guy who had to have been in his early-mid-sixties. It was surreal to say the least. After telling us how displeased and disgusted he was with the E! True Hollywood episode on Holmes and the Wonderland murders (he felt the producers lacked integrity and did a hack job with all of the interviewees),Tomlinson informed us how the interview would go during our meeting and proceeded to push “start” on Sugar’s tiny cassette recorder while we waited for our lunch to be served. He talked for 45 minutes straight without allowing for us to ask questions or interrupt him. When he finished all he had to say, he reached across the table and pushed “stop”. Then we were allowed to ask questions.

      After our lunch, we checked into our hotel and replayed back the tape. We knew that what we had was golden and we were very excited to say the least. To our schock, the tape had somehow garbled itself and we weren’t able to listen to the interview. Undaunted, Sugar said she thought she could repair it. We walked across the road to a dollar store and purchased a pair of scissors and scotch tape. True to her word, and after an hour sweating bullets, Sugar was able to refurbish the tape and we listened to the entire 45 minutes. What Tomlinson had to say about the Wonderland investigation was absolutely fascinating and refreshing. (He and Tom Lange both proofed our interviews with them prior to the book’s publication.) Just over one year later, Tomlinson appeared at our book launch in Hollywood holding a vase in each hand with fresh cut flowers which he proceeded to hand to us. There were smiles all around. It was truly a great night.

      • John W 5:50 pm on June 7, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks Jill! … Wow. I’m in the middle of my Chris Darden book (OJ Trial fever lately)… And it is good. As far as Inches, I have only looked at the pictures and will get on it asap. The LAPD brass and DA ended up at odds with their detectives, it seems.

    • Jill C. Nelson 5:11 pm on June 8, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Yup, Tomlinson was given strict orders by his superiors NOT to arrest Nash even though there was sufficient reason to do so. Also, he did not have flattering things to say about former DA Ronald S. Cohen, now an L.A. Superior Court judge.

      • Jill C. Nelson 5:14 pm on June 8, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        *Coen*.

      • localarts 6:22 pm on June 8, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        I’ll say it again. Nash’s Power was far reaching. For the same reasons the powers that be never wanted Lange’s Four On The Floor published are in many way’s why a veil of protection was afforded Nash. Eddie Nash could have brought down a lot of political figures if he had chosen to exercise that power but there is a reason why he’s still kick’in at 84!

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