Thanks to Bonnie for providing the testimony. Muy Bien, Chica!
Here is part 2! Â 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.
* * * * * * * * * *
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 âChina Whiteâ; that it was in the area of Mr. Nashâs dresser. We proceeded to pick that up. Also that there was an attachĂ©Â 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 attachĂ© case was a considerable sum of money in 20âs, 50âs, 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: Iâm not right quite sure where it was found. I know it was found in Mr. Nashâs 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 werenât 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 couldnât 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 â the ladder, pardon me â 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. Dilesâ 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. Dilesâ closets there were two antique long guns. One was a flintlock rifle and the other was a Colt revolving shotgun. On Mr. Dilesâ 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 Nashâs 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. Nashâs 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 â
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. Nashâs bed as Mr. Holmes said Mr. Nash kept quite a number of guns in his house and I didnât 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 âWe have got everything we need here. Letâs go.â
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. Launiusâs 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 âWell, letâs get this over withâ 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
(indicating).
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
(indicating).
THE COURT: Indicating the chair north of the table just below the word ânook.â
THE WITNESS: Mr. Holmes was alternately between these two chairs (indicating) and this chair
(indicating).
THE COURT: Indicating the chair below ânookâ, the chair closest to the stairs and the chair that is south of the table closest to the kitchen.
BY MR. COEN
Q: How were the booty â for lack of a better term â
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 wasnât enough money; he didnât 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 âhave a good timeâ â
A: Yes, that is correct. Yes. Everybody did.
Q: At sometime did either you or the defendant Holmes leave the residence?
A: I donât remember when John left. I do remember when I left.
Q: Did the defendant Holmes leave before you, if you recall?
A: I donât recall.
Q: When did you leave?
A: I left approximately 9:00 or 10:00 oâclock 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 â
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.
(LUNCH RECESS)
Jim Morrison referred to the Laurel Canyon Country Store in a song as âthe store where all
the creatures meet.â He lived on nearby Rothdell Trail at the time.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF DAVID LIND
FEBRUARY 2, 1982
P.M. SESSION
BY MR. HANSON:
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 âŠ. ?
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 ânookâ 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 donât 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 â 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 didnât care for Mr. Holmes that much, didnât 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 didnât 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 oâclock about, Monday morning. That would be July first. Is that â Iâm — – as far as the dates are concerned Iâm a little confused.
Q: I understand. Iâm 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 Nashâs 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 Iâm saying is, did you discuss the fact that you didnât 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 didnât 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 âLiquid Band-Aidâ, we put that on our fingertips, all of us.
Q: Was that done at â
A: The Wonderland residence.
Q: — Wonderland residence?
A: Thatâs 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. Nashâs 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 donât use heroin?
A: I didnât 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 â that is the Wonderland residence â 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.
Holmes?
A: Would you mind repeating â
Q: Iâm sorry. What Iâm 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: Didnât 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 â that is what he did. He dealt in narcotics.
Q: What Iâm 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 Iâm 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.
BY MR. HANSON:
Q: So if it happened you wouldnât know?
A: That is correct.
Q: What Iâm 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, werenât 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 werenât 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 donât 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 oâclock.
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 itâs 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. Iâm not sure. I know it was about 12:00 oâclock.
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 wasnât.
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 didnât.
Q: Did he give you to understand that he had actually been in the residence?
A: Yes. At 8:00 oâclock that morning.
Q: And â
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: Iâm 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 â 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?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
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.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HANSON:
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.
smauge, 
localarts, and 1 other are discussing. 
Greg Carter, 
Raeven, 
Jarrett, and 1 other are discussing. 
criticextraordinaire is discussing. 
Moll, 
Walter Lavender, 
Joey, and 4 others are discussing. 
Chris, and 8 others are discussing. 
Richard, 
bobabooie, 
James DelCol, 
krislyn, and 1 other are discussing. 
Jenn, 
Bonnie Brae, and 1 other are discussing. 
localarts 4:11 pm on March 28, 2018 Permalink |
I’ll probably watch it. However, I’m not sure the Oxygen network can reveal anything we don’t already know. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that John and the collective members of this forum know more than they do! This blog is the equivalent of a “Wonderland Graduate Degree”. Once you’ve been here, theres really no need to search anywhere else…
John 7:14 am on March 29, 2018 Permalink |
Scott Thorson is not referred to by name in the Mysteries & Scandals episode. I just watched it. That is because, and like many of the surviving Manson family who aren’t in prison, feels he should be paid, as if his name and story, are a cashable commodity. They used to be, nobody gives a flip any longer. That Candelabra film was good, but did nothing to lessen his ego.
The episode on Oxygen was a surface piece: no new photos, no talk of victims lives, peripheral motives, side characters, the subculture, the things my book digs into. Tom Lange looks, a bit older, and always wise. However, nobody knew Nash had died, but… we at the blog knew~ at least got whiffs back in 2014. At about the same time my friend was ringing Nash’s intercom buzzer at his Tarzana condo, only to hear the greeting play – it was a woman’s voice, with an accent – asking to please leave a message, and Eddie will get back to you. Little did we know, he was probably already gone. His last name means Victory of God in Arabic. The survivors and,the victors tell history’s story – and his will never properly be told, but I will try.
Ten years ago, when asked about an interview to discuss Holmes life for the outstanding book “Inches”- the definitive story of John’s life – Nash said he would sleep on it over the weekend. The authors waited… Monday or Tuesday rolled around, and through his attorney, Nash, the one-time bit actor and stuntman and horseman… said, “No thanks.”
criticextraordinaire 7:00 pm on March 30, 2018 Permalink |
I just hope that the Oxygen show does not turn into a one-dimensional character assassination of John Holmes. Seems to be a sport with some people, including those who were John Holmes “hangers on” while he lived, then stood in line to defame him after he died.
If the show tells the story, the WHOLE story without devolving into a John Holmes bashfest, then OK.
criticextraordinaire 9:00 pm on March 30, 2018 Permalink
Well Dawn seemed to take over a considerable piece of the show. You woulda thought she was one of the people at 8763. Even threw in a nice tear-jerker segment saying that Johnny Wadd was “no hero”. Thanks for the heads up.
Ron Coen came across as a douche, as he did in the “Wadd” documentary. Bottom line he lost his case in court and Holmes was found innocent on all charges. Coen had one job to do and he didn’t get it done.
Got a laugh where they kept showing a Mercedes Benz representing John making his various moves. What was it he was really driving? If I recall a Chevy Nova (or similar) that he and Dawn repainted with spray cans.
No mention of Tracy McCourt. Bummer, he was the wheel-man for the Nash hit; you’d think he would get his due.
The footage of Susan was the first I’ve ever seen. Nice. I just wish she would have done a bit for the show giving is background on Ronnie.
A highlight was Soledad O’Brien as hostess. She’s as hot as ever.
John 11:22 am on April 1, 2018 Permalink |
The show was great though, overall. They touched on the lifestyle, music and what had become of the Canyon by 1981. But with 44 mins of running time, it’s a long case to discuss. I decided to grow a mustache since watching it, a prison stache though, so I can infiltrate Aryan Brotherhood on my Honda Gullwing with rainbow flag on the back waving in the breeze, find out more about David Lind. Tell them I used to run with Liberace, or Lee, as we called him!
criticextraordinaire 2:59 pm on April 1, 2018 Permalink
If they think you were running with Lee, get ready for some SERIOUS jailyard abuse.
smauge 5:02 am on April 3, 2018 Permalink |
I hope this show ends up on the internet at some point. Iâm sure youâd post a link, John. Donât think weâll get it here in Australia. Iâd love to see some vision of the mysterious Susan Launius!
John 8:59 am on April 5, 2018 Permalink
You get to see and here her briefly on the witness stand. Very beautiful.
criticextraordinaire 8:46 am on March 30, 2018 Permalink |
It’s too bad that Rodger Jacobs is not still alive to see this. He deserved boatloads of credit for keeping the interest going in this case. I wonder if Oxygen finally managed to get Susan to break her silence?
John 9:36 am on March 30, 2018 Permalink |
At the time, when Rodger’s health was failing and he was living at the Hotel Cecil, or whereever it was, I wanted to go rescue him from his strife, let him come live with me. I’ll never forget his story, probably around 1985, when he took his last six bucks to the package store, and was walking back to his apartment near some freeway in LA – a govt issue sedan pulled up, a secret service guy asked to look in his paper bag, made a comment that he too was ready for a Heineken. Then, President Reagan’s motorcade zoomed by.
criticextraordinaire 5:07 pm on March 30, 2018 Permalink
Yeah I always wanted to help Rodger too, even though I was fairly sure that things would end kinda they way they did. I did manage to make contributions to him at his blog, and recruited a few others to do the same. Eyes open, I knew the score. But still he was a human being and you want to help.
I once got similarly accosted by the Secret Service. O’bama was making an unannounced visit to town. Couldn’t get out until his campaign bus was long gone. The town’s name? Beaver PA. đ
John 11:10 am on March 30, 2018 Permalink |
Susan doesn’t remember anything, hardly remembered arriving at the house even. However, I’m like you, if only to hear her tell stories about Ronnie. But, I have interviewed three people who were close to him- hopefjlly a fourth, hopefully by this summer, and that is all in my book (I don’t post everything on the blog). If you have read Malice… Susan was traumatized by the Mexico business. It was bad. I have prayed for her and wish her well.
localarts 8:36 am on March 31, 2018 Permalink |
For someone who’s just discovering the story about Wonderland, I would recommend this show. It’s a good primer. The only mystery left is who swung the pipes.. We know Holmes, the Diles brothers; Greg & Danny or Samual were there. Speculation consist of Hovsep Mikaelian and members of the Russian mafia as the others. Weather or not Holmes murdered Launius is somewhat irrelevant. A far greater crime was John Holmes orchestrating the robbery of Ed Nash in the first place. That one single act changed so many peoples lives in a negative way. It was Devastating.
criticextraordinaire 1:04 pm on March 31, 2018 Permalink |
The one thing I saw in the show that I never knew before was Eddie showing up at John’s trial and sitting in the back. That had to have been sending John a MASSIVE signal to continue keeping his mouth shut. For all of John’s bad decisions, the one good decision he made was to keep his mouth shut re: Eddie, all the way to his grave.
Well Holmes certainly deserves his charge of the blame for the robbery of Eddie Nash. But he dIdn’t hold a gun to Ronnie or David’s heads either. They bought on to the idea as a way to make a huge score, and probably as a big “FU” to a more established player in the drug business. If they had not been using as much dope as they sold, they (including Holmes) might have thought twice about the wisdom of robbing Eddie Nash and letting him live.
One thing that I have always wondered about Eddie is why he never ordered a hit against the guy (Robert Garceau) who murdered his son (Telesforo Bautista). I would have thought that situation would have resulted in a retaliation that would make Wonderland look like a tea party.
localarts 4:04 pm on March 31, 2018 Permalink
According to McCourts testimony, “everybody backed out” of the robbery at one point. Obviously, we don’t know what made them change their mind. I bet when Eddie walked in that court room, the lights flickered on & off, the clock on the wall stopped ticking & the moon passed in front of the sun. When the prince of darkness sends a message, he makes sure there’s no room for misinterpretation.
criticextraordinaire 4:17 pm on March 31, 2018 Permalink
I think that Ron Coen would have wet his pants if he were ever confronted by Eddie.
John 10:33 am on April 1, 2018 Permalink
When Eddie walked in to court, it was like that movie, Scanners, the DAs heads all exploded!
John 10:37 am on April 1, 2018 Permalink
Ed showing up at the trial is mentioned in the Holmes bio INCHES by Jill Nelson and Jennifer Sugar. I believe they say Ed was there more than once! They have a great chapter on Wonderland. This business about Ed at Holmes trial has been posted on the blog before…btw.
localarts 11:28 am on April 2, 2018 Permalink |
From an intimidation and scare tactic standpoint, the 82 and 90 trial’s were a stark contrast in the demeanor of David Lind, thats for sure!
John 12:40 pm on April 7, 2018 Permalink |
David had two kids with his first wife in the 1960s. I was told he was estranged from both children, and they didn’t know them at all. In the early 90s with a different woman, his other son was born just after the Nash-Diles trials, and this kid was a toddler when his father died in ’95. I have seen a photo of him, and it looks like he is studying in school and making something of himself. Maybe Dave is looking down on him from that smoky, beer joint in the sky…
If there’s a nice ending to this whole bloody mess, it’s that most of the relatives of the victims, near-victims and or perpetrators, have had remarkable and happy lives (from the ones I have met or talked to). I say “most”… I don’t know about all.
(I haven’t forgotten about you, Kevin D., and will give you a shout soon so we can talk about your dad more. I am planning a month-long road trip out west this summer…. So Adam, please let your dad know I took a hiatus from the blog last year, but am now back and my book is a go!)
Peace~