Collin begins by defaming the victim: “Richard Baldwin, the victim, was a known pedophile (according to court records).” Collin does not cite to any court records to support this statement. There are none. It appears that he seriously misconstrues the opinion of the federal magistrate who set aside Crossan Hoover’s conviction. (Hoover v. Carey, later reversed by the Ninth Circuit.1])

Crossan was the actual killer and was convicted of carrying out the killing upon Mark’s order. In his federal case, the magistrate described a 1982 psychological evaluation of Crossan. During that interview, Hoover stated that Richards had told him that Baldwin was a homosexual rapist. He became enraged – he thought that Baldwin was looking at kids or talking about them. “It made me get more angry at him and I didn’t even know him.”

Collin quotes Hoover v. Carey to emphasize the magistrate’s finding that a school psychologist and youth counselor expressed deep concern for Crossan before the crime. The counselor described him as “one of the most disturbed kids” he had seen. Yet, in context, the court used that to illustrate “Hoover’s psychological turmoil before the killing, the influence of Richards and the Pendragon fantasy over him, and the stark evidence of his disconnection from reality at the time of the killing itself.” The circumstances in Hoover’s life culminated in “an attachment to a manipulative cult leader promising escape from a world of disillusionment.” This does not mean that Baldwin committed any act against Hoover, but that Richards used Hoover’s vulnerabilities to instigate the murder.

The quotation marks used by Collin do not indicate that the words appear in any court decision. Hoover stated that a sexual assault occurred long before he met Baldwin and never alleged that Baldwin abused him. (Hoover v. Carey; People v. Hoover.) No court, attorney, or investigative reporter at the time even hinted that Baldwin had assaulted or abused the teens employed by Richards – who may have been too old to interest a pedophile.

It is important that Richards was a good friend of Baldwin. Mark’s mother, Lois Richards, described Baldwin as Mark’s “best friend” and emphasized that Baldwin had been a dinner guest at their house. Baldwn had been a part of Mark’s wedding. If Baldwin was known by Richards to be a pedophile and rapist, would a captain have maintained their deep friendship? Would an honorable space captain have agreed to work for Baldwin and brought a crew of teenaged boys into contact with him? (See People v. Hoover [Baldwin was a friend of Richards]; Murder in Camelot [same];California Magazine,”Medieval Murder in Marin,” Jan. 1983, [describing depth of friendship, including Baldwin’s role in Mark’s wedding].)

Mark’s own statements indicate that he did not regard Baldwin as a “known pedophile.” Mark did not allege that Baldwin was a rapist or abuser when he was interviewed by investigators, even when he was specifically questioned about Baldwin’s sexuality and his statements to Hoover. Indeed, Mark acknowledged that he did not know about Baldwin’s sexuality, but used Hoover’s feelings to manipulate the teen.[2]

Collin maintains that his speculation amounts to new evidence, but nothing transforms this case into a “justifiable homicide” (Cal. Pen. Code sec. 197) or even the lesser crime of manslaughter (sec. 192a). Collin’s attempts to blame the victim do not amount to evidence – let alone new evidence. The crime was a calculated murder lacking any justification other than Richards’s financial gain.

Mark Richards

Collin describes Richards as being a “highly intelligent officer and gentleman of character.” As discussed above, the court opinion that Collin tries to use (Hoover v. Carey) presents a far different picture of Richards. Those who have read the main article on this site can reach their own conclusions. However, Collin’s speculation about Richards is remarkable given that Richards and Cassidy insist that Mark was framed.

The answer to this question should be self evident. There is no evidence apart from Collin’s imagination that Baldwin extorted or threatened anyone. At the time of the crime, Mark was an unlicensed contractor rather than a career officer. But having taken the law into his own hands, would a gentleman of character lie to investigators about why he had possession of items belonging to Baldwin and used Baldwin’s credit card after the murder? When this did not work, would a career military officer assert that he only tried to cover up the murder out of a misguided loyalty to the teens who worked for him? Perhaps most importantly, would an honorable space captain have used a vulnerable and disturbed teen to carry out a murder?

Throughout his article Collin describes Richards as a captain with military training, yet no evidence to support this has ever been presented. Richards claims he was on active duty at the age of 13, that he joined the army as an lieutenant after high school, flew helicopters in Vietnam and participated in the evacuation of Saigon. He presents himself as a naval captain, a member of the Air Force special operations, and a leader in the earth defense command headed by his father, but no evidence has been presented to support this.

A 13 year old is not going to be on active duty. Rather than serving as an Army officer after high school, Mark attended the College of Marin and became a history major at Dominican College where he was active in school affairs. After college, he dreamed of producing a screenplay. Mark is shown announcing his plans in this 1976 photo, which does not indicate a military appearance or bearing. He hoped to establish an institute with George Lucas and William Shatner but could not pay the rent. He became an editor of an ecotopian magazine. He married. He employed teens as an unlicensed contractor. He wrote about Pendragon. And by the time he was 29, he had major financial problems pressing him from every side that set the stage for the murder.

Collin faults Kevin Moore for confronting JoAnn about her claims of Mark’s military record. Regardless of that particular incident, if Collin, Cassidy, or Richards have any documentation to support Mark’s military career and his role as a pilot they should present it. There should be unclassified military records, enlistment documentation, helicopter flight certification, or personal items, such as photographs, that would substantiate Mark’s claims. Collin lauds Cassidy’s “professionalism” but unless this is substantiated, everything they assert – every phrase that describes Richards as a Captain – must be regarded as stolen valor. How hard can it be to document that Mark was on active duty as a young teen, that right out of high school he was an officer, and that he was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam in addition being a college student?[3]

The Trials and the Legal System

Collin is misinformed about a number of matters and seemingly did not undertake even the most basic research into the trials of Mark and Crossan or the relevant law.

First, he states that “Sentencing, on a ‘Murder’ conviction ( alone ) with ‘no’ ‘Special Circumstance’ (‘sentence enhancement’ charges), in a California prison for ‘Life In Prison’ is ‘initially’ ’45-years.'” To the contrary, first degree murder with the possibility of parole carries an indeterminate term of 25 years to life. (Cal. Pen. Code, sec. 190; see Hoover v. Haviland.) It is a remarkable mistake for an investigator to make.

Collin attempts to explain how various credits can reduce a sentence. It has changed over the years and Collin does not provide an accurate way of determining the Minimum Eligible Parole Date. He gets it completely wrong when he writes: “Technically and legally speaking to the sentence of Hoover, he should have already been released from prison no later than 1990.” No. An indeterminate term is indeterminate and a person who is serving a life sentence, and is eligible for parole, is not certain to be released. Crossan became eligible for parole in 1999. The Board of Parole Hearings found him suitable for parole on September 25, 2018 – although the governor later reversed that decision.

Collin is more on solid ground when he writes, “The Court’s Judge sentence additional clause of ‘Without Parole’ translates into a ‘Death Behind Bars’ term of imprisonment” for Richards. Life without parole (LWOP) is an alternative to the death penalty and attorneys in a capital sentencing phase of a trial often argue that a client will die in prison under either penalty. It should not be minimized in any way. To be clear, however, it is not just a clause inserted by a court. Special circumstances must be pled and proven, as they were in Mark’s case. (Cal. Penal Code, sec. 190.2.)

Collin states that the “prosecutor’s” appeal of the magistrate’s decision reversing Hoover’s conviction was “a bizarre twist.” The appeal was taken by the state rather than the “prosecutor” and it would have been expected as a matter of course. Collin appears to believe that Crossan was released following the initial order. He was not. The order was stayed until the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision. (Case No. 07-16749.)

He also asserts that Andrew Campbell, the third teen involved in the crime, was found guilty.

Contrary to Collin’s understanding, Campbell testified in exchange for immunity and was not tried. Collin’s error is again surprising since it shows a lack of any real investigation. Mark used this grant of immunity during his trial to argue that Campbell’s testimony should not be believed. That is a legitimate defense. Cassidy takes this further and is quoted as believing that Campbell was an MK Ultra plant. Sometimes words fail, especially because she has also described the crime as being an Illumatti hit.

There is no single “America’s skewed court system.” Each state is different. California puts some limits on liability. The law provides that anyone who is “in” on a crime may be prosecuted as a principal offender. If you willfully aid and abet a crime you cannot evade the consequences. If you knowingly instigate a crime you are liable regardless of whether you are the final perpetrator. However, mere knowledge about the crime or presence at the scene will not suffice. (Cal. Pen Code sec. 31.)

This is a basic principle of liability – the same principle that made Nazi leaders liable for war crimes perpetuated by others or led to Charles Manson’s guilt verdict for murders carried out by others. Indeed, people have been sent to death row and executed under these circumstances. Collin does not explain why it is “skewed.”
Still, it has to be asked, how remote was Richards from the crime? Evidence established that Mark had approached two others about killing Baldwin; Mark admitted that he manipulated Crossan against Baldwin; he was there when the murder happened; he gave the signal for Crossan to kill; he bought a boat with proceeds from the crime in order to dispose of the body; he used Baldwin’s credit cards to go on a spending spree and took Baldwin’s belongings; he lied to police investigators. This trial court found that there was overwhelming evidence to support a murder verdict. Even under the defense theory, Richards tried to cover up the crime in a misguided attempt to help the teens – a defense that contrasts with his current claims.

Collin speculates about the California Court of Appeal’s ruling on the pre-trial writ filed by Richards. (Richards v. Superior Court.) The court noted that Richards approached another employee, William Robles, about killing Baldwin, explaining that he was was broke and needed money fast. “Robles told petitioner he would think about it, but joined the Navy in late June, disappearing from the scenario.”

Although Collin attaches importance to the wording that Robles disappeared, there is nothing mysterious about this. It simply means that Robles no longer worked for Richards and was not part of the crime. Indeed, it was reported that Robles joined the Navy as a way to leave Pendragon after Richards talked about murder and threatened him. (California Magazine, “Medieval Murder in Marin.”)

Moreover, Collin questions whether Robles was a witness against Richards or if he truly disappeared. The answer is easily found by any investigator or reader with a general knowledge of the trial. Robles was a testifying witness, who told jurors about how Mark used Pendragon, paid him to recruit new members, and tried to get him to kill Baldwin. (See Murder in Camelot.)

Similarly, Collin attempts to find something sinister with the court’s statement, “After lunch [Richards] conversed with Baldwin, who showed his visitors several of his cars and invited them inside for cookies. Campbell now explained that, while Hoover had an interest in cars and wanted to see those in Baldwin’s shop, he would himself rather stay at work on the house.”

Collin appears to be mystified by this, wondering who the visitors were and what were the cookies:

It is clear that the visitors were Richards and his employees – Campbell and Hoover. Why wouldn’t Baldwin offer the teens cookies? As was reported, Richards joked that it might be Baldwin’s last day on earth, but Baldwin did not catch on and took something out of the oven, asking if anyone wanted cookies. (California Magazine, “Medieval Murder in Marin”.)

There is no reason for Collin to make Baldwin’s offer into something more sinister. Mark was his friend. Baldwin acted like a friend. So when he served cookies, they were oatmeal-raisin. Indeed, Campbell specifically testified that Baldwin did not offer them marijuana. (Preliminary Hearing, p. 106.) There is no basis to speculate about anything else that might have been meant. The quotation marks that Collin asserts does not indicate any source other than himself. In light of the readily available information identifying the cookies, it is astonishing that Collin raises this issue. He does more than let his imagination run wild, he again tries to defame the victim.

Collin suggests that the teens acted upon these comments without Mark’s knowledge.

As discussed above, there is no evidence to establish that Mark had a militarized mindset, a military bearing, or observational training. Again, parts of Mark’s service record could be established if it existed. If Baldwin’s alleged “disgusting behavior” caused Mark to snap out at his best friend, then his supposed observational training and leadership qualities would have stopped him from bringing teens into that environment. Again, neither a space captain or a responsible employer would have “bit his own lip” in the face of a friend’s inappropriate or abusive behavior.

Regardless, this theory is similar to Mark’s defense at trial that Richards was misinterpreted by the teen killers – that he helped cover up the murder rather than instigate it. The jurors ultimately rejected this explanation. At the very least it is a far different picture than what Mark has since asserted. His actions in buying a boat to dispose of the body, taking Baldwin’s property, and forging Baldwin’s name on checks and credit card purchases were not that of a highly trained space captain, but of someone who was directly tied to the crime.

It is not necessary to go through other erroneous statements made by Collin.[4] His “investigation” is fraught with mistakes and omissions. It is appalling that he attacked the victim without any basis other than his own speculation and complete misunderstanding. On the Dragonhill Books website, Jo Ann writes that she hired an investigator to stir things up so that they could hand things over to an attorney. One hopes that she did not hire Collin. He does not provide Mark with a cognizable defense.

A Moment of Truth?

Collin has posted a further article: “Evidence behind the Hoover / Mark Richards Case: Moment of Truth” (Feb. 6, 2019). It continues his attack on Kevin Moore and purports to offer hidden material:

The material Collin uses has long been posted on this page – Kevin Moore also gathered and released additional substantial documentation related to the case that might otherwise have been outside public purview. Apart from attacking Moore, Collin simply repeats his basic allegation by offering

For all the reasons stated above, the murder was not a justifiable homicide and there is no evidence that Mr. Baldwin was a pedophile stalker. Collin takes evidence of how Mark manipulated Crossan, embellishes it with his own imagination and tries to pass it off as a “fact.” Enough said about that. The new article is as incomprehensible as the old.

The attack on Moore is disturbing, but not in the way that Collin intends. The article asserts that Moore is a “slip-shodding dunderhead’, but in that case Collin should be able to easily answer the questions that are being asked of Mark, Kerry, and Jo Ann.

Instead of innuendo and name-calling, Collin should document Mark’s military record – what unit did he serve with when he allegedly flew helicopters as an Army lieutenant in Vietnam or participated in the evacuation of Saigon; when did he become a Navy Captain; when and where was he assigned as part of the Air Force Special Operations? Collin could obtain a photo of Mark in uniform. He should be able to present school records to validate Mark’s numerous advanced degrees. Mark’s family history could be supported by providing the airship plans that Mark’s maternal grandfather allegedly handed down to him; Collin might establish that Mark’s paternal grandfather was somone other than an expert in practical electrical applications; photos, correspondence, and other documents could be presented to show that Mark’s father was a friend of JFK, the Dalai Lama, and Humphrey Bogart. Collin might explain why Mark is not listed as being a Rhodes Scholar and how a life prisoner could currently be a high ranking member of the Republican National Committee.

At the very least, Collin should establish the facts that seem to exist only in his own mind.

If this site and Moore have been slip-shod, then proof of these matters would truly be a “moment of truth.” We have long asked Richards to show us evidence that we are wrong. Instead, Collin leaves us with stolen valor, stolen intellect, and a stolen history. Collin’s ramblings do nothing to either discredit Moore’s upcoming film or support Mark. Instead, the article demonstrates why truth – and the ability to substantiate claims – is important.

Notes:

[1] It should be noted that the role of an appellate court (both state and federal) is not to make factual findings, but to interpret the law. A court of appeal must accept the facts that are established below in favor of the judgment. An investigator like Collin should therefore consider the full record from the trial court or other background material. The documents posted on this site and the portion of the trial record obtained by Kevin Moore should have been important to Collin.

[2] During Mark’s interview with investigators following his arrest, Mark acknowledged that he learned that Hoover had an intense hatred for “sexual perverts and homosexuals,” and that he used that sensitivity to “jack up” Hoover against Baldwin. Later in the interview, Mark stated that he did not know for certain whether Baldwin was gay or bisexual, although he had seen Baldwin with women.

Perhaps the only thing on the public record remotely having no to do with Baldwin’s personal life is that he double-dated with Mark, Mark’s first wife, and her twin sister. (California Magazine, “Medieval Murder in Marin.”)

[3] It might be very hard. This site submitted a verification request to the National Archive based upon all the information about Mark’s service record that he has claimed, plus his date of birth. Although Mark’s social security number was not available for obvious reasons, it was more than enough information to locate his service records. No record could be found..

Jo Ann Richards has stated that all Mark’s records are classified. As discussed elsewhere on this site, such an answer is not enough..

[4]. Statements such as this defy any rational response, but not because the argument is persuasive:

Nevertheless, there is some irony to this paragraph because Richards is the only one in this story who claims to be a Rhodes Scholar – although is disproven. (See main page.) As to the word “Pendragon” it was clearly a term chosen by Mark. (See Imperial Marin; Witnesses testimony about Pendragon.) Collin is the only one confused by it. His utter lack of an investigation is apparent.