Expendable For A Cause.

“The world has been fed many lies about me..”
Richard Ramírez

Now available, the book: The Appeal of the Night Stalker: The Railroading of Richard Ramirez.

Click here for both the ebook and the paperback.

Welcome to our blog.

This analysis examines the life and trial of Richard Ramirez, also known as The Night Stalker. Our research draws upon a wide range of materials, including evidentiary documentation, eyewitness accounts, crime reports, federal court petitions, expert testimony, medical records, psychiatric evaluations, and other relevant sources as deemed appropriate.

For the first time, this case has been thoroughly deconstructed and re-examined. With authorised access to the Los Angeles case files, our team incorporated these findings to present a comprehensive overview of the case.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus

The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you should have the body”—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person’s detention can be assessed. In United States law, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called “the Great Writ,” and it is not about a person’s guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus—”relief” in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained or falsified evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impanelled.

All of those things can be seen within this writ.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is not a given right, unlike review on direct appeal, it is not automatic.

What happened was a violation of constitutional rights, under the 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Demonised, sexualised and monetised.

After all, we are all expendable for a cause.

LOOSE ENDS

You, the Jury
Questioning

The word “occult” comes from the Latin “occultus”. Ironically, the trial of an infamous occultist and Satanist is the epitome of the meaning of the word itself: clandestine, secret; hidden.

We’ve written many words; a story needed to be told, and we created this place to enable us to do just that.
Here, in this space, we intended to present the defence omitted at Richard Ramirez’s trial in violation of his constitutional rights. Our investigations have taken us down roads we’d rather not travel along, but as we did so, we realised that there was so much hidden we could search for a lifetime and still not see the end of it. Once we’d started, there was no turning back; we followed wherever it led.

This was never about proving innocence; that was never the intent or purpose. We wanted to begin a dialogue, allowing this information to be freely discussed and for us to verbalise the rarely asked questions. We asked, and we’re still asking.

We can’t tell you, the reader, what to think; you must come to your own conclusions, as we did.

And so

We’ve said what we came here to say; with 114 articles and supporting documents, we’ve said as much as we can at this point.
This blog will stand as a record of that, and although we will still be here, we intend to only update if we find new information, if we suddenly remember something we haven’t previously covered, or to “tidy up” existing articles and examine any new claims (or expose outrageous lies) that come to light. The site will be maintained, and we’ll be around to answer any comments or questions.

What Next?

We will focus on the book being worked on; we’ve also been invited to participate in a podcast. When we have dates for those, we’ll update you.

The defence rests? Somehow, I sincerely doubt that; ultimately, we’re all “expendable for a cause”.

~ J, V and K ~
POOR EVIDENCE, THE LOS ANGELES CRIMES

Native American Tattoo?

Here is Gil Carrillo, recalling how Anastasia Hronas – the little girl who was allegedly sexually abused by Richard Ramirez – remembered seeing an “Indian headdress tattoo” on the arm of her kidnapper.

‘George Lopez, Gil Carrillo, and the Night Stalker on Netflix’ from YouTube podcaster J R.

That is an amazing lead. But Richard Ramirez had no such tattoo. Carrillo insists Hronas actually saw a pentagram pen drawing, which obviously looks very different to a Native American headdress. By claiming all she saw was a star inside a circle relies on the idea that an intelligent child could not identify and describe a star.

As ever, there is something wrong with other details pertaining to this crime. 1985 newspapers warned the public about a suspect whose appearance does not match Richard Ramirez. They described a man ten to twenty years older and of short to medium height. From the Arcadia Tribune, 30th June 1985:

From the Los Angeles Times 30th June 1985:

From the Orange County Register, 8th September 1985:

In the Orange County Register, Anastasia described being taken to a “beat-up blue motel”. The Arcadia Tribune said it was a hotel or an apartment. On Night Stalker: the Hunt for a Serial Killer, Anastasia appeared, recalling a dirty house with a chainlink fence and large snarling dogs. It feels as if police were not listening to this child properly – surely a blue motel, like the tattoo, is a promising lead. What happened to Anastasia Hronas was terrible, but as for Ramirez’s guilt, the facts seem to be at variance with the claims of Detective Carrillo.

Furthermore, witnesses at the line-up, including children, were coached by a police officer to choose suspect number two: Richard Ramirez. Carrillo acts amazed that Anastasia chose Ramirez straight away. She was almost certainly among the group of children being coached.

_{From Richard Ramirez’s automatic direct appeal S012944}

Apologies if the video is out of sync!

-VenningB-

30th July 2023

Further reading about the abductions here.

Buy the appeal of the night stalker: the railroading of richard ramirez
IT’S RELEVANT

Child Abductions: Not A Night Stalker Thing

On this blog, we have already established that there is no evidence that Richard Ramirez was abducting children, as mentioned in this general outline of the whole case. Primarily, because it is impossible for anyone to shapeshift in the way Ramirez supposedly did. When DNA supposedly tied Ramirez to the brutal stabbing of nine-year-old Mei “Linda” Leung, it appeared to vindicate the allegation that Ramirez harmed children, although that case is not as clear cut as the public have been led to believe either. We covered the Leung case here. Below: the February-March 1985 child abductor/s from the Los Angeles Times and the Netflix documentary (centre).

While the child cases never went to trial “because the prosecution wanted to protect the children”, they (and adult victims) were being coached to pick Suspect Number 2 at the line-up, also covered in ‘Shapeshifter’ and this post on Anastasia Hronas in which a detective admits he told her what she saw. If those child abduction cases had gone to trial, it could have damaged the credibility of the rest of the claims, because it would soon be discovered that the original suspect – or one of them – was a blonde man.

We say one of them because there were many of these crimes happening in Los Angeles, Los Angeles County and Orange County. This was not some new phenomenon that occurred at the same time the “Night Stalker” was supposedly at large and stopped abruptly in September 1985. It continued in the same manner after Ramirez was captured. Some of the perpetrators might even be the same kidnapper as in 1985. The following is by no means an exhaustive list – many more can be found in the news archives. While child abduction numbers where greatly exaggerated as part of a 1980s moral panic, there were enough to make parents worry. Sometimes, these kidnappers killed.

Pasadena, L.A. County: In December 1986, Phoebe Ho of South Pasadena was abducted on her way to school and her body was found dumped in Riverside County. Warren James Bland, charged with her murder, also had a penchant for stealing Toyota Corollas, a car model constantly linked to Richard Ramirez.

Placentia, Orange County: Another crime thought to have been committed by Bland was that of Wendy Osborn, aged 14, who was abucted in the same way, from Placentia in 1986. Her body was found dumped in Chino Hills, San Bernardino County. However, in 1995, DNA proved the killer was Raymond Barthlett. Barthlett was already in prison for a similar crime in 1988, in which the girl survived. The survivor, Kelly St John, went on to create a documentary about Osborn’s murder.

Tustin, Orange County: in June 1987, a father beat an intruder unconscious after he tried to drag his daughter, nine, out of their house at 1:45am. This abductor was Paul Edward Kumbartzky. He was 5’8”, slim to medium build with brown hair and blue eyes. The police were also looking for another kidnapper in Tustin at the same time, where Patricia Lopez, nine, was abducted and killed by a stocky Latino suspect with a moustache. In 2007, DNA discovered the real killer was her brother, who was 21/22 in 1987. He was charged with her murder but died before the trial.

Duarte, Los Angeles County: on 13^th November 1989, a man attempted to kidnap two girls aged seven and eight outside Royal Oaks Elementary School. The two girls fled and told police the man was six feet tall, white, with black curly hair. This crime is very similar to the ones connected with Richard Ramirez, that occurred outside schools situated on Donna Way, Montebello (March 1985). However, back then, a child abductee (and an adult witness to another failed kidnapping) both mentioned a blonde man of medium height and build. Ironically this Duarte kidnapper’s appearance is closer to Ramirez’s than the suspect in the crimes he was accused of.

The following day, 14^th November 1989, a nine-year-old was cycling home from Andres Duarte Elementary School when a man knocked her off the bike with his car and ordered her inside. The girl climbed back onto her bike and cycled away. However, this sounds like a different man from before. He was white, in his 20s with brown hair, brown eyes, a moustache and heavy set. He had a cut with stitches on his left cheek. He drove a red four-door car. This is his composite sketch.

Another article on the Duarte abductions suggested that this was a rare problem – a school district superintendent said this was an unusual crime; that he had never dealt with anything like it. While it was not his area, surely he remembered the kidnappings attributed to the Night Stalker just four years earlier? Duarte is close to Arcadia, where Anastasia Hronas was from.

La Verne, L.A. County: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department did not think the above Duarte cases were related (rightly), nor did they believe any of the perpetrators committed yet another abduction on 12^th November 1989. In this La Verne case, a six-year-old girl was abducted, sexually abused and released by her captor in a local park. It is curious that in 1985, detectives were obsessed with linking Ramirez to six abductions where the multiple suspects looked nothing like him, yet four years later, the LASD insist that three similar cases over a three-day period were definitely not the same man. Again, a lieutenant from the LASD stated that, “None of us can remember this ever happening in the history of the city.” He probably specifically meant La Verne (in L.A. County, the districts are separate ‘cities’), but surely he remembered the abductions of 1985, that took place in Montebello, Eagle Rock, Monterey Park, Highland Park, Rosemead and Arcadia?

Interestingly, this suspect was white, about 30-years-old, medium build, medium height, with light brown or blonde hair. Although this man had a moustache, he is very close in appearance to the man sought for the March 1985 abductions Ramirez was accused of. He could also be the man with the cut on his face from the 14^th November Duarte incident (although he was “heavy-set”).

South Bay, L.A. County: in September 1989, there were seven attempts to kidnap nine children in Redondo Beach, Hawthorne and Manhattan Beach. The suspect was either white or Latino and in his 30s. His complexion was tanned and he sported a dark moustache and hair. He sometimes wore sunglasses. The children said he either drove a blue pickup truck or a Pontiac or a station wagon. Had this been four years earlier, Ramirez might have been accused, for he once owned a Pontiac and is portrayed as committing crimes in station wagons.

South Central Los Angeles: In April 1991, a man was committing identical crimes in South Central Los Angeles, where five girls aged between nine and 14 were snatched as they walked to school, molested and abandoned. This was a black suspect (Kevin Shovor Samuel), so obviously was not the same men from Los Angeles County, but it demonstrates that these are not rare or unusual crimes. It happens in inner city areas just as much as it does in suburbia.

Costa Mesa, Orange County: in April 1991, an eight-year-old girl was walking to school when a man tried to drag her into his car. The man released his grip when some passers-by witnessed and screamed. Disturbingly, there were other children inside his car. He was about 40, 5’10” with short brown hair and a moustache. He had a red and green rose tattoo on his hand.

Seal Beach/Huntington Beach, Orange County: August 1991. Glen Scott Simons, 25, was arrested of trying to drag a 12-year-old girl into his car. Ramirez was also accused of trying to snatch two 12-year-olds, particularly one in Highland Park, allegedly just before the traffic offence. Similar to the Highland Park case, thankfully, this girl broke free. A month earlier, there had been a similar incident in which a man tried to force a 14-year-old into his van and pointed a gun at her.

San Gabriel Valley: in 1992, back in the general area of the 1985 Night Stalker crimes, another child abductor was on the loose and driving a Toyota pickup truck. A four-year-old girl was snatched from a street in San Gabriel on 27^th May. A few days later, a five-year-old was taken in Monrovia and escaped from the truck when the driver stopped at a red light. This suspect was thought to be involved in a third incident with a San Pedro child (not in the Valley), also aged five. The suspect was 25-30 years old, medium build and about 5’8”. He had slicked back hair, possibly in a ponytail. Just days later, detectives arrested Steven Scott Rivers, aged 30, based on a composite sketch shown on the news (sadly not included in newspaper articles).

With these cases, Detective Darren Perrine said he looked at San Gabriel, Rosemead and Pasadena sex offender lists and created a shortlist of which Rivers was the most likely, based on a drawing. In Pasadena alone, there were 1,062 sex offenders. So why is it that this register was not checked when the 1985 abductions were happening? Why was it immediately thought to be the ‘serial killer’ that Detective Carrillo was hoping to catch? Was it just the presence of an Avia print at one dumping scene that took police way off track? In any case, those children have never had justice, because they have gone down in history as Richard Ramirez crimes, with no hope of reinvestigation.

A map of the many abduction cases

-VenningB-

8/1/24
IT’S RELEVANT, POOR EVIDENCE

Richard Ramirez: False Child Abduction Allegations

After watching Netflix’s Night Stalker: The Hunt for a Serial Killer documentary a few years ago, my co-writer Jay decided to research the abductions. It was surprising to discover old Los Angeles Times articles (from March 1985) that urged the public to watch out for a 5’9” blonde or light brown-haired man of medium build who had snatched or attempted to kidnap children from outside schools. A man fitting a similar description had entered a home and taken another male child. These are the newspaper clippings. The images might appear too small if you’re using a small device.

^{14th March 1985}

The article cuts off but here is the rest from an online copy:

A bedroom abduction happened again just two weeks later on 20th March, this time to a girl in Glassell Park. Other articles say she was from nearby Eagle Rock. She will be referred to as “Girl S.”

As you can see, the suspect does not resemble Richard Ramirez – not the composite sketch nor the drawing by Fernando Ponce (who later drew the infamous Khovananth sketch and also Carol Kyle’s first). Here is a coloured and clearer version of the image:

Blue eyes?

This was the point where Detective Carrillo explained that he felt it resembled the Maria Hernandez sketch so he theorised that the crimes were connected (also to the Tsai-Lian Yu case). This is a matter of debate.

Maria Hernandez’s sketch

By making this child molester into the shooter seen by Maria Hernandez, it looks as if Carrillo discarded what the children described: a blonde/light brown-haired white man. Hernandez said he had dark hair and was possibly slightly tanned.

One can try to argue that the children were mistaken. But the school kidnappings happened in daylight and there was an adult witness. It may be difficult to accept that a detective could either be lying or making mistakes, but not impossible. According to biographer Philip Carlo, Carrillo was so invested in connecting the children to the murders that they were made to view another suspect in an April 1985 line-up.

By late August 1985, the media was reporting that “Girl S” said the Eagle Rock abductor resembled the Night Stalker.

After Ramirez’s capture, on 8^th September, an Orange County Register article claimed that the Montebello child (the 25^th February attack) described a tall, thin man. He was originally described as average height and build. As with the adult victims, the molester is slowly being manipulated into the form of the Night Stalker, although he was always nebulous.

June Abductions

To return to June 1985, there were three child cases. One was a school abduction in Rosemead on 5^th June. The child was unable to give a good description and nothing more was heard about it. Information on the second abduction on 15^th June is difficult to find. The following details can be found in the Affidavit (Document 7.4 of the 2008 appeals documents): an attempted kidnapping was reported on Garvanza Avenue in Highland Park around 3:45pm.

There were no news articles on the incident. Carrillo had been searching through teletypes of other unrelated cases and decided it was Richard Ramirez because he was caught jumping a stop light three miles away on Delevan Drive/York Boulevard. This was the incident where they found his dental appointment card in the car and discovered his alias, Richard Mena.

The third incident on 27^th June involved Anastasia Hronas, who spoke on the Netflix documentary. This is how the incident was described in news articles – he is probably a different kidnapper to the one in February:

^{30th June 1985 in the Arcadia Tribune}

Gil Carrillo recently revealed that Hronas told him her abductor had an “Indian headdress” tattoo on his arm. He said he corrected her that she saw a pentagram, therefore it was Richard Ramirez. This could be interpreted as another instance where he has dismissed what the child described to make it fit with his theories, just as happened with the children who saw the average build blonde man. Children are simply brushed aside as being mistaken – even when they give very important pieces of information like distinctive tattoos.

Hronas also said on the documentary that the man took her to a home with a chain-link fence which contained two dogs, and he put a Madonna record on repeat. These should have been amazing leads, but they were dismissed. Does this sound like Richard Ramirez who was notorious for listening to heavy rock, which the media claims influenced his crime spree? He was homeless and lived in cars but somehow, he had a house and dogs.

After reading both the 2006 Automatic Direct Appeal and the 2008 Federal Habeas Corpus documents, we discovered that both children and adults were encouraged to choose Ramirez at the September 1985 line-up.

Below is an image of Judith Crawford’s notes that we found in the Los Angeles County Hall of Records. If you can read it better than us, please leave it in the comments! It [probably] says from the second paragraph:

“Prior to 1^st line-up, saw man squat down and make a V-sign with thumb and finger tucking in.“

A-K [probably refers to the surname order of witnesses]: “Someone else make a similar motion. Squatting man – John Jones, LASD.” [L.A. County Sheriff’s Department].

“2^nd person, Tom Hageboek, and told Adashek [Ramirez’s attorney] & turned own notes to ? Office (probably the district attorney). Little girl turned around and appeared to talk to someone behind her. Saw female deputy about 3 minutes later.”

The girl referenced might be Anastasia, or “Girl S.” See the video below for the deputy telling them who to choose using a hand signal.

The 2008 Federal Habeas Petition revealed that Ramirez was only charged with two child cases; both were dropped in 1986. This motion suggests that it was Hronas’ parents who did not want her to participate although Carrillo, Salerno and Halpin claim it was their magnanimous decision to spare the children pain. Besides, even with such poor defence attorneys, surely these abductions would easily crumble under scrutiny and damage the credibility of other cases.

The above was a defence motion. One might argue that defence attorneys lie and grasp at all kinds of theories to save their clients’ lives. Yes, some of them do but the Ramirez case is unusual. One: his defence made the minimal effort, even when exculpatory evidence was revealed in court by independent scientists. Two: these cases clearly had nothing to do with Ramirez. There is also suggestion that Ramirez was threatened by detectives to confess to the crimes otherwise they will pin the abduction cases on him.

People often accuse us of disrespecting victims as if showing old newspaper articles is bullying children of the past, who are now middle-aged adults. We know the children were traumatised. We aren’t blaming them for changing stories or giving inaccurate information, because they were all under 12-years-old and terrified. We are merely showing that justice was not served and we aren’t the people you should be angry with. We will never know who attacked these children now because everyone believes that it was Richard Ramirez and the victims have been given a false peace of mind: “case closed”.

There were also other similar attacks occurring in the same area after Ramirez was imprisoned. One of these men could have been the real perpetrator. If so, he went on to traumatise more children because detectives ‘cleared the books’ by sweeping them away with the Night Stalker hysteria.

You might have come to the end of this article wondering if we have an explanation for Mei Leung’s murder in San Francisco, 11 months before these Los Angeles abductions commenced. We do: the DNA sample was flawed and again, the suspect looked nothing like Ramirez and the crime has been ‘Satanized’ with time.

Whatever comes out on future documentaries or books regarding new allegations of molestation, they do not invalidate our investigations concerning the 1985 abductions. The perpetrator was most likely to be someone else.

-VenningB-

Further reading:

Children were invited to a line up in April 1985.

Further evidence of rigged identification.

Our article on Mei Leung’s case.

L.A. County child abductions after Ramirez’s arrest.

Richard Ramirez’s alleged confessions.

Anastasia Hronas and the Native American tattoo.

05/12/24
Uncategorized

The Sandoval Child Abduction

If you look at Richard Ramirez’s 2008 appeal petition, you will see find counts related to someone called Thomas Sandoval in the original set of charges. Count 7 and Count 8 pertain to an attack on a child. The penal codes are as follows: 459 is burglary, 207(a) is kidnapping, 261(2) is forcible rape and 288(b) is lewd acts with a child.

The child was female; Thomas Sandoval is likely her father representing her. Detective Gil Carrillo has named the victim on podcasts but it won’t be revealed here because she has never come forward.

Halpin skipped Sandoval, going straight to counts 12, 13 and 14 – the Zazzara case – because the Sandovals were not available. Halpin claimed to have warned the Hernandezes already, and berated them for being unprepared for Zazzara. However, Daniel Hernandez said it was not formally on the record. Halpin then makes the excuse that court was adjourned before he had the chance, and that he had told them another way.

^{These may be hard to read, and you may need to view on desktop.}

“I tried to put it on the record and the court had already adjourned.”

– Halpin’s excuse.

The cases were supposed to be tried chronologically. The Hernandezes complained that Halpin’s changes violated their client’s rights. Daniel Hernandez claimed that Halpin only told the clerk that they were skipping Sandoval, not the judge.

This wasn’t the first time Halpin had done this – he skipped witnesses on the Vincow case and went straight into Okazaki and Hernandez leaving the defence unprepared.

^{Daniel Hernandez’s complaint}

Halpin then became personal. This was when he called the Hernandezes clowns.

And Judge Nelson threatened to have him held for contempt of court, but the defence’s motion to have more time to prepare for Zazzara was denied.

Considering the only physical evidence the prosecutor had for this Sandoval abduction was a shoeprint at a construction site in Glendale, it’s not surprising that the charge was eventually dropped. The defence team could easily demolish the girl’s eyewitness identification. Children were coached at the line-up and the crime reports would undoubtedly give a description that didn’t match Ramirez. It makes the story about dropping the cases to spare the children reliving their ordeal in a courtroom seem like another overdramatization – weaker cases are often dropped because they can damage the credibility of others.

^{The Avia print found at a construction site where the child was abandoned.}

And as we’ve said many times, if Richard Ramirez truly was the suspect in these cases, why did the newspapers tell the public to be on the lookout for a blonde man of medium build and height?

On documentaries (one being the Netflix series), Carrillo and Frank Salerno explained that the child cases were dropped because they, and Halpin, thought it would be cruel to put the children on the witness stand. One of them described an emotional moment out of the courtroom where they made this agreement. Given the lack of evidence and Halpin’s stalling on bringing the Sandovals to the preliminary hearing, it makes this story sound like an invention. The truth is that these child cases would have collapsed under scrutiny and undermined the rest.

Dates

Another strange discrepancy is the date. This article says the abduction occurred on 20^th March 1985. But the charges list says 17^th March – the same night as the Dayle Okazaki and Tsai Lian Yu murders, which were themselves separate incidents, four miles apart. The child was abducted from Eagle Rock (some articles say Glassell Park), Los Angeles and found in Glendale at 03:00.

If this 17^th March date isn’t just an error – and legal documents shouldn’t have glaring errors like this – are we expected to believe Ramirez was rampaging around three locations all on the same night? That seems preposterous.

Another curiosity is Carrillo’s constant reference to a child in Pico Rivera whose details seem to match the Sandoval child. However, Pico Rivera is a considerable distance from Eagle Rock. It could be a simple mistake, or it could refer to another child entirely. However, no newspapers report on a girl being kidnapped in Pico Rivera, only Montebello, Eagle Rock and then a boy was snatched in Monterey Park. Later abductions or attempts occurred in Rosemead, Highland Park (allegedly) and Arcadia (Anastasia from the Netflix documentary).

Incidentally, Ramirez was never charged with most of these child cases. Aside from the Sandoval child, the list of counts only contains that of Anastasia (counts 31 to 36), who is not named (it says “victim not alleged”). We can say her name because she has chosen to go public with her story – and you can read about that case here.

One final thing: you might have noticed that there are two 459 burglary codes with Thomas Sandoval being named twice. This is because it was believed that Ramirez had burglarized some of the abductee’s homes either before or during the abduction. This was also the accusation for the uncharged Monterey Park case. However, Halpin had no evidence to present for the Count 7 burglary at all, and skipped to Count 8. Why was Ramirez charged with robbing the Sandovals with no evidence?

In conclusion, there was no evidence except the circumstantial Avia shoeprint at a construction site that has no forensic link to Ramirez or even the child – the Avia impression could have come from a builder or, frankly, anyone. And now we know that Philip Halpin had no intention of presenting further evidence. He clearly hadn’t even told the family that they might be needed in court – they were out of state – and one could speculate he skipped their case to trip up the defence by moving onto Zazzara when they were unprepared. It is difficult to believe there was ever any intention of prosecuting Ramirez for the child abductions.

25/11/2025
THE LOS ANGELES CRIMES

The Devoted Son

After months of persistent efforts to obtain documents from the LA Archives and Record Center regarding Richard’s case, we finally received hundreds of pages of transcripts from the preliminary hearing. However, it was a small fraction of what we are seeking, as we received a limited number of documents from 1985 and 1986. Nonetheless, within those transcripts, we uncovered interesting information that sheds light on the relationship between Jack Vincow and his mother, Jennie.

The day Jennie Vincow was brutally murdered, she was found lying in bed, with her feet toward the headboard, dressed in what appeared to be a nightgown. A blanket was lying on top of her, partially tucked around her, covering her body up to the lower portion of her neck. The medical examiner, Lawrence Cogan, reported that she had suffered multiple stab wounds to her body and a deep slash wound to her neck. Several of the wounds she suffered had the potential to be fatal on their own. Cogan also emphasized the significance of the stab wounds being located on the front of her body, indicating that the assailant and victim were likely in a face-to-face position when the wounds were inflicted.

(Statement by Detective Jessie Castillo, Court Reporter Transcripts, 3-4-86)

By all available accounts, including the 2008 Federal Habeas Corpus Petition and various contemporary news reports, Jack Vincow was portrayed as a devoted and loving son who was deeply attentive to his mother, Jennie. However, the court transcripts from March 4 and March 5, 1986, reveal some interesting findings that contradict the widely accepted portrayal of Jack as a caring son.

Appearance of Jennie Vincow’s living room the day she was found murdered

Monrovia News Post, March 5, 1986

Jack Vincow was reportedly a caring and attentive son who visited his mother daily. Yet, the condition of Jennie’s apartment on the tragic day of her death raises questions about the image of Jack as a caring son and contrasts sharply with the portrayal of filial devotion. When LAPD officers arrived at the scene on June 28, 1984, they found the apartment in a disarray. It was assumed that whoever had murdered Jennie had ransacked the home in search of valuables. However, the condition of the apartment indicated much more than mere ransacking. In Jennie’s bedroom was a chest of drawers; four drawers were pulled out, with clothing both hanging out of the drawers and strewn across the floor. The contents of a brown vinyl purse were spilled on the floor, and various items were randomly placed on top of the dresser, including two pairs of shoes and toiletries. Papers were also scattered across the floor. The kitchen table was cluttered with an assortment of items, including two Soup bowls (discussed in a previous post), several boxes of cereal, Styrofoam cups, soup cans, and a plastic dish. Upon inspecting the refrigerator, officers found it “very dirty and filthy,” with several open cans of soup and rotting food, causing a foul stench. The condition of the refrigerator led Detective Jessie Castillo to express disbelief that anyone could continue to use it in such a state. Several LAPD officers described the home as overall “unkempt, very dirty, and filthy,” indicating it was in a deplorable state and appeared to have been in that condition for a long time.

from Los Angeles Times January 31, 1989

Jack claimed he was “very close to his mother.” Would a devoted son allow his elderly mother to live among filth and rotting food? The harsh reality of Jennie’s living situation stands in stark contrast to the image of Jack as a caring son who was involved in his mother’s care, undermining his credibility.

Overkill

Was Jennie’s murder an example of “overkill”? Overkill refers to the excessive trauma inflicted on a victim that goes beyond what is necessary to cause death. Some homicide investigators argue that the presence of overkill indicates a crime of passion and suggests a connection between the perpetrator and the victim. Additionally, the act of covering a body may indicate that the perpetrator had a relationship with the victim and was remorseful. Jennie suffered multiple wounds, several of which could have been fatal on their own. She was discovered in bed, covered and “tucked in” with a blanket, suggesting the presence of overkill in the brutality of her murder.

KayCee