The Law: Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Felony Murder and One for the Colonel

It seems to me that these topics come up frequently. 

The defendants in the Tate-LaBianca trial were indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. At the conclusion of the trial Vincent Bugliosi also sought an instruction to the jury on the felony murder rule  due to Linda Kasabian’s claim she thought she was going on a ‘creepy-crawl’ the night of Cielo Drive and her description of a ‘creepy-crawl’. He also based the requested instruction on the residential invasions, cash, clothing, wallet and food taken on the two nights, the felonies of burglary and robbery. 

The key impact of both crimes is that Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Felony Murder do not require the defendant to actually kill anyone or even be present when someone is murdered to be guilty of murder. That, of course, rather obviously is directed at Charles Manson.

The third area of the law, below, relates to the oft expressed statement that if a witness commits perjury during a capital trial (a murder trial) that they are guilty of murder. Not exactly. 

Conspiracy to Commit Murder

The Law

The statute is California Penal Code section 182. It may have changed since 1970. Here are the actual

jury instructions from the Tate-LaBianca trial. Jury instructions are based upon and generally paraphrase the statutes, in part, and add legal concepts developed by appellate courts. In other words, they are an accurate statement of the law.

“A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit any crime, and with the specific intent to commit such crime, followed by an overt act committed in this state by one or more of the parties for the purpose of accomplishing the object of the agreement.

In order to find a defendant guilty of conspiracy in addition to proof of the unlawful agreement, there must be proof of the commission of at least one of the overt acts alleged in the indictments. It is not necessary to the guilt of any particular defendant that he himself committed the overt act if he was one of the conspirators when such an act was committed.

The term "overt act” means any step taken or act committed by one or more of the conspirators which goes beyond mere planning or agreement to commit a public offense and which step or act is done in furtherance of the accomplishment of the object of the conspiracy.”

“Each member of a conspiracy is liable for each act and bound by each declaration of every other member of the conspiracy if said act or said declaration is in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. 

The act of one conspirator pursuant to or in furtherance of the common design of the conspiracy is the act of all conspirators. Every conspirator is legally responsible for an act of a co-conspirator that follows as one of the probable and natural consequences of the object of the conspiracy even though it was not intended as a part of the original plan and even though he was not present at the time of the commission of such act.”

*****

“It is not necessary in proving a conspiracy to show a meeting of the alleged conspirators or the making of an express or formal agreement. The formation and existence of a conspiracy may be inferred from all circumstances tending to show the common intent and, may be proved in the same way as any other fact may be proved, either by direct testimony of the fact or by circumstantial evidence, or by both direct and circumstantial evidence.”

The Elements of the Offense

To be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder the prosecution must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt. 

1. The defendant has to enter into an agreement with at least one other.

2.    The defendant agreed to intentionally kill. The target does not have to be identified.

3.    Some member of the group commits an any act that moves the plan forward in the state of California. Some member of the conspiracy does something to bring about the murder.

4.    The defendant is then liable of every act committed by every participant even if he wasn’t present. He is liable even if he personally didn’t intend the specific act to happen if it was a probable and natural consequence of the plan. 

Felony Murder

The Law

The statute is California Penal Code section 189. Here are the actual jury instructions from the Tate-LaBianca trial. 

“The unlawful killing of, a human being, whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs as the result of the commission or attempt to commit the crime of burglary or robbery, and where there was in the mind of the perpetrator the specific intent to commit such crime [burglary or robbery] or crimes, is murder of the first degree. 

The specific intent to commit burglary or robbery and the commission or attempt to commit such crime or crimes must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

*****

“If a human being is killed by any one of several persons engaged in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, the crime of burglary or robbery, all persons who either directly and actively commit the act constituting such crime or who knowingly and with criminal intent aid and abet it its commission, or, whether present or not, who advise and encourage its commission, are guilty of murder of the first degree, whether the killing is intentional unintentional, or accidental.”

The Elements of the Offense

To be convicted under the felony murder rule: 

1.    The defendant must intend to commit the underlying felony (burglary or robbery) not murder.

2.    Someone is killed during the course of that felony by anyone, intentionally or accidentally.

3.    It doesn’t matter whether the defendant was actually present when the underlying felony was committed if he aided and abetted the underlying felony he is liable for the murder. 

4.    Again, as long as the defendant assisted with the robbery or burglary he doesn’t have to be present when the murder takes place. 

The felony murder rule is generally referred to as ‘accomplice liability’ and is based upon what legal scholars refer to as the probable consequences doctrine. That doctrine says that some crimes have such a high risk that a death is a probable consequence of the crime. 

California SB (Senate Bill) 1437 eliminates what is called ‘accomplice liability’ under the felony murder rule. That statute passed the state assembly on August 29th and the state senate on August 30, 2018 and as of the writing of this post was on the governor’s desk. 

The reason for SD 1437 summarized as follows: 

“It is necessary to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.”

The new law reads as follows: 

(e) A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven:

(1) The person was the actual killer.

(2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree.

(3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.

This change might possibly impact Leslie Van Houten. SB 1437 also says this: 

Section 1170.95 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

(a) A person convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts when all of the following conditions apply:

(1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

(2) The petitioner was convicted of first degree or second degree murder following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could be convicted for first degree or second degree murder.

(3) The petitioner could not be convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

The last section may be a problem. 

Perjury During a Capital Trial

The Law

California Penal Code Section 128 states: 

Every person who, by willful perjury or subornation of perjury procures the conviction and execution

of any innocent person, is punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to Sections 190.3 and 190.4 [emphasis added].

The Elements of the Offense

First, you have to willfully perjure yourself. You have to lie voluntarily. 

The key here, however, is the underlined portion of the statute. In order to be executed for committing perjury during a criminal trial, three things must occur: 

1.    The person you testified against was innocent.

2.    The person against whom you testified falsely was convicted. 

3.    The person against whom you testified falsely was executed. 

So, let’s assume hypothetically that Bugliosi somehow managed to coach Kasabian well enough that she was able to invent everything she said. We also have to assume she wanted to participate in the scheme and even came up with some zingers on her own. Finally, lets assume Manson was at Esalen from August 1st to the 15th and had no idea what happened. Unfortunately, he can’t prove it because he jumped the fence. He’s innocent. 

Kasabian gets on the stand and lies. Bugliosi asks the questions that help her lie. Manson is convicted. The Supreme Court does not intervene and Manson is subsequently executed. Both Kasabian who committed perjury and Bugliosi, who ‘suborned’ her perjury could be tried for murder and could be executed. 

What is historically stated inaccurately on this blog is that just because you lie during a murder trial you can be convicted of murder. That is false. 

One issue that has been debated by 'legal scholars for over 100 years is whether these crimes, known as inchoate crimes should be crimes at all. The defendant actually does not commit the crime for which he is prosecuted and convicted. He participates in a robbery (felony murder) or allegedly agrees to someone else committing murder. This is seldom proven by an actual 'recorded' agreement but nuances, circumstantial evidence. In this case that comes down to seven words: Now is the time for Helter Skelter and a few comments made by a con man whose schtick was a race war or philosophical discussions with Gregg Jakobson.

This is especially the case with the felony-murder rule. At least with conspiracy to commit murder they have to prove you agreed to commit murder. With felony murder you are there or participated in crime #1 and end up in prison for life (or worse) for murder.

I, personally, support conspiracy laws. I agree with the state of California on the felony murder rule.

Pax vobiscum 

Dreath

Sneaking Into Sneakyville

A couple of intrepid souls sneaked into where the filming of Spahn Ranch will be for Tarantino's Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.  From the looks of things they have done a pretty good job of recreating the ranch.


They are building the sets at Corriganville Park in Simi Valley.  Corriganville was once a movie ranch, like Spahn and Iverson Ranches.  It closed in 1965 when Bob Hope purchased it.  The project Hope planned did not take off and he abandoned it a year later.  Corriganville is now a regional park.

The Boardwalk

A couple of the vehicles they have gotten for the filming

What would the film be without Dune Buggies?

Looks like they are going to make this area into the horse arena

An old school bus was acquired

George Spahn's house

A barn, couple of old cars and George's house in the distance

The boardwalk, old vehicles and the bus

The boardwalk, an old wagon like the one that was in front of the ranch and a trailer similar to the one that was parked next to George's house

.

The Not So Lost Manson Tapes (A Rant)

The Lost Manson Tapes

I went into viewing this “special” with way more knowledge than then casual viewer.  Regular students of the case who follow this blog know Robert Hendrickson very well from his frequent postings on the message section of the blog.  I was blessed to know him and his wife Tobyann for over a decade, after he screened his second Manson Doc, INSIDE, at a special standing room only screening here in Hollywood.   I tried to get Anchor Bay to release blu rays of both documentaries I held a special screening at INSIDE at William Morris which led to quite a lot of consternation.

I was also able to introduce Matt and Tobyann to one of the early blog Tours, hosting them at dinner at El Coyote, the night prior to a Cinefamily screening of Manson.  I also took Tobyann and Robert to dinner at El Coyote the night of the screening of the shittiest Manson 16 mm print ever at the New Beverly.  Robert spoke after and it was glorious.  Tobyann and Robert came to a party I hosted and spent most of their time speaking with George Hamilition.  “I’ve seen some shit” became the byword of the afternoon.

And then Robert was dead.

I met multiple times with his stepson, Alan, who called him Dad and tried to help him figure out what to do.  His brother was living in the family’s endlessly renovated house, Tobyann’s 99-year-old mother was moving in and Tobyann was definitely suffering from some dementia.  He wanted to capitalize on the footage that Hendrickson had.  This was a conflicting situation- Robert had never actually done that much with the footage and I never understood why.  When I got to his three file cabinets at one point, eighty percent of the files were lawsuits he filed against Amazon and Ebay for selling bootleg dvds the mob had made of Manson.  He never released a legit one which would have shut the bootleggers down.  He preferred to spend most of his time on Quixote legal battles that likely did not make him much profit.

People are odd.

Six weeks before he died I bounced an idea off of him that he loved.  My company has tried since 2000 to do the accurate version of the story.  Not the BUG approved one, the true story, what really happened.  The closest we came was August 2001 and then the terrorist attacks killed that deal.  We recently wanted to do a TV miniseries on the TLB story and could not find a “way in”.  The original script we had was through Mary and Paul’s eyes which made sense up to a point.  But what if we told the story through ROBERT’s eyes?  A young filmmaker, back from the Nam trying to do what sounds like a ludicrous fictional film ends up “embedded” with the Manson family.   That is a pretty cool point of view.

Robert was excited.  So, when he passed, I wanted to explore a way to tell that story in his memory.  With his death, I no longer needed life rights to do so, but I always envisioned (never clearly) a way to tell the story cutting together real footage of the real players.

This still might happen.  I hope so.  With movies coming out next year that all sound like they are continuing the official BUG bullshit approach, it would be nice to tell the real story at last.  Tarantino riffing on Christopher Jones’ life might be the end of the trail, with the truth so warped in the public’s eyes there is nowhere else to take it.

I helped Alan find the releases and pretty much all the paperwork he needed in Hendrickson’s files.  You can imagine the head rush as I found the signatures of Mary, Nancy and the rest, still there after almost fifty years.   Alan dug around for what footage he could find.  Robert had wanted to do a ten-hour miniseries if you recall so there must have been a lot.

I drifted away for a beat trying to figure out my show, and heard that Alan, who tours with Frankie Valli, had gone to his co-worker Dean and they had made a deal with a UK company Naked Tv to use the tapes for a TV special.  I thought that Robert would turn over in his grave, but felt good that maybe this would pay for Tobyann’s care.

In the meantime, while this played out over the next two years, Naked reached out to members of this blog looking to contact Manson Family members.  I am not sure, but I believe they told them to bugger off.   I mean even if Matt knows where Ousich is, it doesn’t mean he has to help some bs UK tv company find her.

Then the show was picked up by Fox, which made me think it might be good, not because it was Fox but because someone bought it.  THEN they decided to put in on Monday night, the lowest night of the week.  Well the final ratings were abysmal, just awful.

And so was the special.

I promised a review, not endless back story-

REVIEW

The Lost Manson Tapes is really a hodgepodge TV show that utilizes the following elements

-          Paid interviews with Catherine Share and Diane Lake and Mark Ross

-          Random Interviews with some people who agreed to talk to them, including shrink’s and Peter Coyote

-          Hendrickson’s footage

-          Other Footage

It is easy to review the entire show as “boring, derivative, garbage, seen it all before” hit because that is what it is.  By the first commercial break it was clear that they were going to try to tell the whole story again.   I mean Christ.  So, the best thing to do is to look at the elements I list above and see what they did with them individually.

1-     PAID INTERVIEWS

Catherine Share, on top of everything else, was part of the Hawthorne Shootout, where the Family tried to rob some weapons to break Charlie out of Jail.  This included many hundreds of bullets being fired at police officers.  Catherine Share was shot in the shoulder.  She was sentenced to ten years to life.  Catherine Share is not some nice old grandma looking back on her life and saying “I am not really horrible.” She first surfaced on some bullshit show five years ago with BUG going back to Spahn.   This show PAID a woman who shot at police to say basically nothing I mean go back and listen to her and her alone- no insights.

Dianne Lake has a book to sell. Dianne knew about the murders and did nothing.  Yes, she was a child, Yes, she testified.  But she was not the star witness.  But my scorn for Snake is actually based on Bill Molesto Nelson’s work. You see, he was an idiot and a pedo but I think he quoted things correctly.  I think he was one of the people who never realized how quotes make him look bad.  And in his book, he describes tracking down Snake and her husband and being told, essentially, “You know, you almost got yourself in trouble we are in hiding and not talking to people.”  But Snake has a book to pimp.  She says a few things and then kinds of goes to the background.

Mark Ross   shows up with his nonsense alias Aesop Aquarian and now is some hero who claims Charlie wanted him to kill a judge.  Horseshit.  The last TV show I saw had Mark in a van being grilled as the guy who killed a girl who had nothing to do with Manson.  Can’t these specials get their shit right? 

2-     RANDOM INTERVIEWS

Peter Coyote is lying or mistaken.  The Doctors all say what doctors say.  This entire section is horseshit

3-     HENDRICKSON FOOTAGE

We are told that this footage was lost for forty years.  It was in boxes in a side room at Hendrickson’s house.

They use probably less than 20 minutes of the footage in the whole special.

We have seen almost all of the twenty minutes, except the clappers and Merrick’s offscreen voice.

They incorrectly play Manson vocal footage not from Hendrickson.

They play the clip of Manson from MANSON that I do not think Robert shot or smuggled any camera in.

They show Mary, and TJ and Nancy and Squeaky with ZERO CONTEXT.  Who is TJ?  Who did he kill?  Why are we watching him?

No context for Paul and Brooks for that matter.

We are excited to see footage that was LOST, except it wasn’t and anyone who saw Hendrickson’s two docs over the years saw it all before.

4-     OTHER FOOTAGE

There are other things in here like the crime scene and funeral footage but we have seen it all before and it is shown very much out of context.

BUT the biggest bullshit in the special?   Trying to summarize the case WITHOUT footage of Linda (especially) and Sadie/Katie/Leslie and Tex.  Hendrickson never shot them, so this special marginalizes them.

The second biggest bullshit?   The special says that not only did Charlie purposely brainwash everyone over YEARS but he had a plan all along, to kill Tate et al.  Even assuming Charlie was purposely brainwashing people (he wasn’t) to say he had a plan in 1968 that he implemented in 1969 is truly stupid and deranged.

The final bullshit in the special- NOBODY hired a private eye to find Hendrickson’s family.

If this is where we are headed in 2019, with celebrity filled “People who lived down the street from Sharon” movies and “CIA Mind controlled” books I weep for the future of TLB research.

Was this Family member also an undercover operative for the LAPD?

Compare the pic of Family associate/member Karate Dave with the pic of an LAPD undercover operative named James Region Jarrett, from the same time period.   IMO, there is a close resemblance.


Karate Dave  (from the collection of Family mugshots)

The principle Tate homicide detectives Sgt Calkins and Sgt McGann, posing with their bud, James Jarrett, in 1970

Jarrett in 1984

--------------------------------

Karate Dave hung around the Family for a couple of months from about April to July of '69, and got arrested with them in Inyo County, on the way to Barker.  From Lt. Deemer's list:

murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/search/results?captcha_id=captcha_search&what_all=Karate+Dave&who_only_made_by=0&display_as=0&search=Search
David Ralph Baker, dob 8-3-46 (possibly 2-9-50)
Dave
Karate Dave
David William Lipsett
Charley
Charles Ellis
David Lipsick

David Lipsett(aka Karate Dave) on Lt Deemer's list:
POB Vallejo, CA/Summerville So. Carolina
"Ident marks: numerous bullet wounds and scars"

murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/thread/1035/life-charles-manson-chapter-13
PAUL WATKINS, My Life With Charles Manson Chapter 13
"Karate Dave was another “heavy-duty” recruit who joined us during that period(Gresham time span). He was twenty-six, a Vietnam vet, and tough as nails. He had a plastic elbow (a vestige of his battlefield experience) and carried himself with an air of cold and utter confidence. Dave wasn’t big (five-nine, 160 pounds) but was built like a gymnast. While he seemed to like Charlie, he never tried to ingratiate himself. He was in it strictly for the goodies—all the women he could handle and what promised to be some excitement."  ....
"...Barbara Hoyt whom Charlie assigned to Karate Dave. ... She fell right in with the tempo of things at Gresham Street and eventually moved into a tree house in the backyard with Dave."

murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/search/results?captcha_id=captcha_search&what_all=Karate+Dave&who_only_made_by=0&display_as=0&search=Search
PAUL WATKINS, My Life With Charles Manson  Chapter 15
"When I got back to Spahn’s, the girls were there. So was Dave; he had climbed out the bathroom window in Mojave during a court recess and had escaped the same night. A week later, Dave left the Family, and I never saw him again."  (about July of 1969)

How Karate Dave came to the Ranch is unknown, though it appears Charlie himself invited him in:

Manson: the life and times of Charles Manson, by Jeff Guinn c.2013
pg204
Charlie also said that he'd met someone who was a karate expert and would come out to Spahn to teach them how to fight hand-to-hand, but he never showed up.

Karate Dave was also the source of the Continental Bakery truck Manson drove around in:

Ed Sander, The Family, pg 190
Danny DeCarlo... bought the bread truck off of one Dave Lipsett, a friend of Manson.  DeCarlo traded some stolen motorcycle parts, including an engine, for the Twinkie truck.

One wonders where Manson first met this guy.

In this December, 1969 interview with police, Leslie Van Houten might be talking about this same fellow, who seems to have made quite the impression:

www.cielodrive.com/updates/leslie-van-houten-1969-lapd-interviews/
MISS VAN HOUTEN: (Unintelligible) Dave.
SERGEANT McGANN: What’s his last name?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: I didn’t know their last names.
...MISS VAN HOUTEN: But as I recall, I think Dave had left —
SERGEANT McGANN: What?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: If I recall, I’m pretty sure Dave left a long time ago.
SERGEANT McGANN: Yeah.
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Well — But, of anybody, I’d suspect him.  That guy — whooooo —
SERGEANT McGANN: (Unintelligible)
MISS VAN HOUTEN: That’s one person you wouldn’t mess with..  for..  a..  second.

catscradle77 on Karate Dave over at truthontatelabianca.com
"I think he taught the kill schools or whatever you want to call them."

Did your tax dollars pay for these lessons on how to slaughter the TLB victims?


-----------------------------------


James Jarrett, 24 in 1969, was likewise a serious dude:

articles.latimes.com/1995-05-26/news/ls-6427_1_james-jarrett
In 1968 Green Beret Sgt. Jarrett(US Army) was honorably discharged* and became Officer Jarrett with the Los Angeles Police Department. At 24, with looks going on 19, he went undercover among Students for a Democratic Society(SDS) at ... Cal State Northridge(San Fernando State College). Then factions much more serious than war protesters--militant Weathermen and the Black Panthers. ...  He wore a beard, tiger-striped jungle fatigues and his easy cover was that of a disenchanted Vietnam veteran. He sold weapons and fragmentation grenades and put people away.  It lasted a year.

*[Or maybe he was just 'loaned out.'  Jarret apparently went right back to the Special Forces after his stint with the LAPD was over.  It should be noted that US Army intel people were being used to penetrate domestic political groups at this time:

Watergate by Fred Emery c.1994
"...the Johnson Administration.... had initiated a program of infiltrating protest groups with U.S. Army intelligence agents."]


jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/Security-CIA/CIA%200296.pdf
LA Free Press July 10 1970
Jarrett has been a 'hit' man—the leader of political assassination teams—in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. He had worked for the CIA in Latin America. He had come to the LA police to help train the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) squad, which was responsible for the raid on the Black Panther Party headquarters last December(of 1969).

www.snipercountry.com/Articles/Bullet.asp
During the Vietnam Conflict, Jarrett was assigned to the 5th, 7th, and 10th Special Forces Groups.

 





There were a couple of other possible connections between Jarrett and the Manson case:


--Before his TLB trial, Vince Bugliosi had successfully prosecuted a group of campus radicals who took hostages at San Fernando State College (now known as Cal State Northridge) on November 4, 1968.  He may well have known of undercover officer Jarrett of the LAPD or interviewed him as part of his case.  

Rumble at San Fernando State

--Officer Jarrett's cover as a political radical was blown by July of 1970 after he tried to plant a case of grenades, allegedly stolen from the Long Beach Naval Ordinance Depot, among a group of Black Panther sympathizers called "The Friends of the Black Panthers."  Bugliosi tells a similar story of a Family member getting a case of grenades:

Helter Skelter, Bugliosi,  pg557
(from about 1-25-71 (the day the jury came back with their verdict))
"From a source close to the Family, LASO had heard what they initially believed to be an incredible tale. While working at Camp Pendleton Marine Base, one of Manson's followers had stolen a case of hand grenades. These were to be smuggled into court on "Judgement Day" and used to free Manson. Again, we didn't know precisely what the Family meant by Judgement Day. But by this time that at least part of the story was true. A Family member had been working in the arms depot at Pendleton, and after he quit, a case of hand grenades was missing."

Needless to say, this Family member was never identified.  Did the cops try to pull the ol' "case of grenades" gambit with the remnants of the Family back in '71 to provide an excuse to arrest anybody who was left, by resurrecting Karate Dave's connections to Charlie?


If Karate Dave and Jarrett are the same person, this then raises serious issues about the whole case.:

--Since Jarrett was targeting political radicals during his time with the LAPD, why would they assign him to penetrate the Family, who were totally non-political?

--Why would the Family be considered such an important target as to rate the attentions of this valuable undercover operative?

--How much did Jarrett learn about Charlie's plans for Helter Skelter?  Why didn't police then act on what they knew of the Family?

--If Karate Dave's job was to teach the "kill schools" (and you can bet that he had to contribute something in order to enjoy the attentions of the girls), doesn't that mean that the LAPD is complicit in the murders?  Yes, it does.

OO-ee-OO!

---------------------------------


"In the same day also will I punish all those that leap on the threshold, which fill their masters' houses with violence and deceit."
     -- Zephaniah 1:9





============================ADDENDUM 9-18-18  ========================


Here is another mugshot of Karate Dave, supplied to us by CieloDrive:

============================ADDENDUM 9-18-18 ========================


Additional information re the real name of Karate Dave (thanks to DebS)

                                                               (Vallejo is in Solano County)

============================ADDENDUM 9-19-18 ========================

 The 'eyes' have it!


                                          Karate Dave

                                          Karate Dave

                                          Jarrett in '84

                                          Jarrett in 2017

============================ADDENDUM 9-20-18 ========================

David Ralph Baker? (thanks to DebS) 

1963 high school photo, when he would have been about 17

/

/