Posts
Anomalous Protection: How Holmes Was Handled (A Forensic Audit of LAPD Procedure)
By Randy Gipe & ChatGPT — follow-up to “The Wonderland Murders: A Forensic-Grade Strategic Analysis.”
Short version: the LAPD’s handling of John Holmes in the 72-hour window after the Wonderland murders contained multiple departures from standard homicide procedure. These departures are not isolated errors — they form a coherent pattern consistent with deliberate containment, protective accommodation, or significant institutional pressure. This post lays out the anomalies, contrasts them with ordinary practice, and shows exactly which records will prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Executive summary — the claim
The LAPD’s treatment of John Holmes and the immediate investigative choices in the Wonderland case were completely inconsistent with standard homicide procedure. That inconsistency appears in repeated, documented ways: delayed arrest of a person physically linked to the scene; passive surveillance in lieu of immediate detention; absence of parallel warrants for party with strongest motive (Eddie Nash); and anecdotal reports of non-standard accommodation for Holmes while in protective custody. Together these deviations demand records and accountability.
How a typical homicide investigation should proceed (short checklist)
When multiple homicide victims are found, standard operating procedure generally requires:
- Immediate crime-scene security and comprehensive evidence preservation (perimeter, photos, single-entry log).
- Rapid identification and containment of any known persons of interest (APB/BOLO, vehicle checks, immediate interviews).
- Prompt coordination with suspect-linked locations — warrants or expedited applications where probable cause exists.
- Prioritization of forensic collection and chain-of-custody documentation to prevent loss or contamination of evidence.
- Transparent assignment records (who is the lead detective, who is supervising, and what orders were issued).
What actually happened — documented anomalies (high-level)
- Delayed arrest of John Holmes. Holmes was publicly visible and linked by a palm print to the crime scene; yet he was not arrested until several days later (reported July 10, 1981). This is a factual timeline anomaly that requires dispatch logs and arrest reports to explain. (Fact.)
- Limited immediate action against Eddie Nash’s properties. Despite the robbery motive and Nash’s obvious connection, there is no publicly documented record of swift, parallel warrant executions in the first 72 hours. (Fact — requires LAPD warrant logs to confirm.)
- Passive surveillance in place of arrest. Public and witness reports indicate Holmes was monitored or moved between safe locations rather than secured in a standard jail intake process. (Accounts exist; custody logs needed.)
- Anecdotal custody privileges. Later documentary accounts claim Holmes received luxury accommodation (hotel/hotel folio anecdotes). This specific claim is unverified in official records and must be flagged as anecdote until custody invoices or booking logs are produced. (Anecdotal → verify.)
Detailed anomaly-by-anomaly audit
1) Arrest timing & public mobility
What happened (surface): Holmes was seen publicly in the hours and days after the murders; reporting indicates he was not arrested immediately and remained mobile until apprehended in Florida on July 10, 1981.
Why this is anomalous: A person with a fingerprint at a murder scene who is seen in public would ordinarily be arrested as a priority suspect to prevent flight, contamination, or witness tampering.
What to request to verify: LAPD CAD/dispatch records (July 1–10, 1981), arrest warrant logs, and the actual arrest report from the Florida arrest.
2) Lack of parallel warrants/referrals to Nash-related properties
What happened (surface): Public record shows no immediate, aggressive search/warrant execution against Nash residences/club properties in the critical first 72 hours.
Why this is anomalous: Given motive and the robbery of Nash days earlier, law enforcement would normally seek warrants for linked properties quickly to preserve evidence and prevent destruction.
What to request to verify: Warrant application logs and execution records (July 1–7, 1981), prosecutor notes authorizing or declining warrant requests, and any inter-agency communications about Nash.
3) Custody treatment & “protective” accommodation claims
What happened (surface): Documentary sources allege Holmes was given non-standard protective custody accommodations (hotel) and privileges (expensive meals). These claims are not documented in public custody logs.
Important: Until custody logs or hotel folios are produced, treat the anecdote as unverified. It remains, however, a high-value target for records-based confirmation.
What to request to verify: Sheriff/custody booking logs, hotel folios (Biltmore or listed location), receipts, deputy assignment records showing who handled Holmes, and any authorization memos for off-site custody.
4) Evidence handling & chain-of-custody questions
What happened (surface): Public accounts and subsequent reporting indicate chain-of-custody irregularities and claims of restricted or special handling of files.
Why this is anomalous: Any lapse in chain-of-custody can hamper prosecution; delays or restricted access to evidence for certain parties are highly irregular for a homicide. Documented gaps would explain later evidentiary failures.
What to request to verify: Evidence accession logs, latent print card access records (Holmes’s palm print accession #), lab submission forms, and any special-file notations in homicide case folders.
Comparative case examples (why this matters)
To make the anomaly clear, investigators compare Wonderland to other LA homicide investigations of the era (e.g., high-profile robber/murder cases where suspects were arrested within hours and linked properties were searched immediately). A short comparative table (examples) will be appended here when we publish the dispatch logs.
Analytic interpretation (labeled)
The pattern of delays, selective action, and anecdotal protective treatment is consistent with strategic containment — whether that containment is the result of criminal influence (bribery, social leverage), institutional caution due to overlapping informant relationships, or a combination of both. (Analytic inference.)
We do not assert that any named individual is legally guilty based on these patterns alone. What we do assert — and will move to prove or disprove — is that the documented procedural choices are out of line with standard homicide practice and therefore must be explained by contemporaneous records.
Records & requests (exact asks you can make)
Below are copy/paste-ready requests you or followers can file. I can produce full FOIA text for each; here are the exact document names to request:
- LAPD CAD/Dispatch Logs — July 1–10, 1981 (call at 8763 Wonderland Ave). Request the CAD printout, call-taker notes, unit assignments, and supervisor messages.
- Detective assignment sheets — homicide unit assignments for July 1–10, 1981 (who led the case; any reassignments).
- Warrant application & execution logs — for any addresses tied to Nash, Diles, or Wonderland associates between June 29–July 10, 1981.
- Evidence accession & chain-of-custody — latent print cards (accession #) that include Holmes’s palm print; lab submission forms and results.
- Custody booking logs — John Holmes (July 1–15, 1981); any alternative custody or “protective” placement memos.
- DA internal memos / charging notes — files discussing scope of charges against Holmes and Nash and any limitations advised by other agencies.
Recommended next public moves
- File FOIA requests now for the items above (we will post full FOIA templates in a follow-up). These are the single highest ROI documents.
- Order court transcripts for Holmes’s contempt hearing and early preliminary hearings; those transcripts often contain direct quotes that expose prosecutorial strategy.
- Publish dispatch-log excerpts as they arrive with an annotated, time-stamped interpretation — the visual delta (call → action) is decisive.
- Invite retired investigators to comment on the record after providing them a sanitized summary of the anomalies (we’ll prepare a volunteer outreach script).
Closing — why this specific post matters
This post isolates the single most politically dangerous claim in our research: that procedural choices — not only evidentiary limits — shaped the outcome. If the LAPD’s documented actions cannot be reconciled with standard homicide procedure, then the public deserves a concrete explanation, not platitudes. We will pursue the records that either prove the explanation (protection/containment) or exonerate the department by showing the rationale (e.g., concurrent federal operations, documented safety concerns).
Editorial note: All interpretive claims above are labeled “Analytic inference.” We will update this post with raw documents and scanned dispatch excerpts as they arrive. If you have relevant records, contact us via the blog.
— Randy Gipe & ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment