Expendable For A Cause.

This article will argue that the evidence in the Abowath case was deeply flawed in three areas: forensic science (bodily fluids), physical (shoeprints/firearms) and eyewitness identification. These raise serious doubts about Ramirez’s guilt for this crime.

Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County

8^th August 1985

Some time after 2:30am, Sakina Abowath was woken by a loud “pop” of a gun, and was hit very hard on the head and forced onto her stomach. She was handcuffed and beaten about the head. Her assailant stood on the bed and kicked her in the head with what felt like boots. He bound her feet together and stuffed her mouth with clothing. He forced her to swear upon Satan that she would not scream – otherwise he would kill her two sons, aged three, and ten weeks. At some point, Mrs Abowath ended up on the floor, where she was blindfolded.

Later, the killer removed her gag and blindfold and demanded money and valuables. Mrs Abowath guided him to the wardrobe where jewellery was hidden in a briefcase. Mrs Abowath looked at the killer while they were in the bathroom, so he hit her and ordered her not to.

The killer went in and out of the bedroom multiple times as he ransacked the house. On the final time he returned to the master bedroom, he dragged Mrs Abowath into the guest bedroom, beat her and orally raped her. He vaginally raped her then covered her with a bedspread. The killer offered her some respite when he allowed her to comfort her crying baby, but soon dragged her back to the guest bedroom and raped her a second time, as well as unsuccessfully attempting to anally rape her.

When the three-year-old son began to scream, Mrs Abowath told him to climb into bed with her. The killer bound him and stuffed pillows on top of him, restricting his breathing and asked Mrs Abowath for some tape to put over the boy’s mouth. The intruder left the room but returned laughing that he had “hit” her husband Elyas Abowath, before handcuffing Mrs Abowath to the doorknob. He barricaded her inside the room with the bed and cushions from the living room and left by car.

Evidence at the scene:

• A melon, a spoon, and a pack of Salem menthol cigarettes on the table. Melon seeds littered the hallway and front garden (transferred by clumsy police officers).
• A .25 calibre copper cased bullet with red primer in Elyas Abowath’s skull.
• Two pubic or transitional hairs (between chest hair and pubic hair) on the Abowath bed.
• A rape kit swab was taken from Sakina Abowath containing semen.
• Semen stains on the bed.
• Kinney brand Stadia shoeprints on the kitchen floor.

The Rape Kit Evidence Suggests Ramirez Was Not the Perpetrator

Detectives claim that the Night Stalker often ate at crime scenes, for example a banana and drinks can at the Bell and Lang crime and alleged milk consumption at the Pan case in San Francisco. A melon and cigarettes were found at the Abowath crime scene, with melon seeds down the hallway. No saliva tests from the melon, its seeds or the spoon were presented by the prosecution. There is no proof that Ramirez ate the melon or smoked menthols. He was not a smoker of ordinary cigarettes – he preferred marijuana. Sakina Abowath did not mention the killer smoking during the attack.

This was the pre-DNA era, so a vaginal swab was taken from Mrs Abowath to determine the PGM (phosphoglucomutase) subtype of the semen. This involves identifying specific variants (isoenzymes) of the PGM enzyme in bodily fluids. Philip Carlo’s book revealed that LASD criminalist, Steve Renteria, discovered that a specific “genetic marker” was present in the semen: a “two-plus band.” This refers to a specific PGM subtype (likely PGM 2+). Ramirez’s subtype did not include the 2+ band, he is conclusively ruled out as the source of the semen. (Carlo, pg. 373).

There were further semen stains on the bed. This time, Renteria used ABO blood typing tests. One stain matched Elyas Abowath’s blood group. The other was Type O, the same as Ramirez. The presence of Type O semen does not make Ramirez the perpetrator – O is the most common blood group. The most important semen sample was on the aforementioned vaginal swab. Why were there multiple sources of semen in the Abowaths’ bed?

“Transitional hairs” were found at the crime scene. This means hairs that are between pubic and chest hair. Ramirez had no chest hair and forensic testing – admittedly rudimentary at the time – ruled him out as the source. (Habeas Corpus pg. 138).

Because Ramirez’s lawyers failed to emphasise this evidence, their arguments made no impact on the jury. They did not retain their own forensic scientists to examine the evidence.

Ballistics Results Were Inconclusive and Possibly Misleading

As mentioned above, Elyas Abowath was killed by a .25 ACP firearm using bullets that contained red or pink coloured primer on the casings. However, because the weapon was never recovered, no appropriate testing could be done. Therefore the ballistics results cannot be conclusive.

The prosecution claimed this connected the Abowath crime to the Petersen Incident in Northridge, 57 miles away because the bullets at that scene also contained the pink/red primer. There was some circumstantial evidence: Ramirez had three similar-looking bullets within a collection in his bag. No other evidence tied the two crimes.

In the opinion of Deputy Sheriff Edward Robinson, the prosecution’s firearms expert, the red primer bullets were no longer manufactured – implying they were uncommon. But it is doubtful that Richard Ramirez should be the only person in Los Angeles who had these old bullets (the prosecution argued that his Avia sneakers were also unique). Ultimately, Edward Robinson failed to demonstrate how the bullet casings proved Ramirez pulled the trigger.

Paul Dougherty, the Habeas Corpus firearms expert, felt that all ballistics needed retesting and that they seemed too distorted to make accurate judgements. Dougherty was supposed to testify for the defence at trial but they failed to contact him and the prosecution’s firearms evidence was left unchallenged.

Shoeprint Evidence Was Weak and Contradictory

The Night Stalker was infamous for wearing size 11.5 Avia Aerobics sneakers. No Avias were found at the Abowath crime scene. Instead, Gerald Burke, a criminalist from the LASD crime laboratory, believed the prints came from size 12 Stadia aerobics sneakers from the Kinney brand. The sole pattern was a “dot matrix.” Stadia sneakers fit with what Ramirez was wearing when he was apprehended.

The Stadia impression was only partial and Burke could not determine whether it was from a left or right shoe and was size 12. However, when cross-examined, he was less certain. Forensic scientist, Lisa DiMeo, writing for Ramirez’s appeals, heavilty criticised Burke’s flawed measuring technique (Habeas Corpus documents 7.19 and 7.20).

At trial, Ramirez’s defence failed to bring a shoe forensics expert witness due to a combination of incompetence and lack of funds (they were not suffiently qualified to be paid by the court). Again, the prosecution’s evidence was not challenged.

Below is a photo from Beware the Night Stalker (Fox Nation – 2019). This purports to show the Stadia shoeprint but it’s merely the image of the sole printed on acetate and superimposed over a photo of the Abowaths’ linoleum. There is no way to judge for ourselves how much of the impression was visible or if it was there at all.

However, sneakers do not fit with the testimony of the victim. According to Ramirez’s biographer Philip Carlo, Mrs Abowath testified that her attacker had been stomping about in footwear that sounded heavy, like boots as opposed to sneakers. The killer removed his boots to rape her and took some time to lace them up (Carlo, pg. 371). Abowath also stated that it felt like she was kicked with a hard sole (Habeas Corpus pg.136).

Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony

Sakina Abowath drastically changed the description of the killer after her initial statement. Below is her description in a crime report taken immediately after the incident. It reports white skin (MW), tall, with light brown/dark blonde curls (Habeas Corpus document 20.3).

Colouring and Ethnicity:

Mrs Abowath spoke to police four times. She reaffirmed to LASD Sergeant John Yarbrough (of the Night Stalker Task Force) that the intruder was “Tall, thin, with a recessed chest and light brown to medium blonde hair with curls.”

She now added that, although he appeared Caucasian, he had “Latin features” and “yellowish skin.” (Habeas Corpus, pg. 136). Latin features are not expanded upon and she said that he did not have an accent. Richard Ramirez had a slight Mexican lilt as one might expect of someone who grew up next to the Mexican border.

So, what changed to make Abowath think the suspect was no longer white, and was now possibly Latino? This raises the possibility that Mrs Abowath was asked leading questions by Sergeant Yarbrough because the Task Force already had a suspect in mind.

Later, when asked to help police create a composite sketch (which has never been made public), Sakina Abowath settled on the hair being “light brown” instead of possibly blonde. (Habeas Corpus, pg. 95). It seems as if every time Abowath was re-interviewed by detectives, her description moved closer to the suspect the Task Force was hunting for.

Teeth:

Initially, Abowath told Yarbrough the killer had “wide front teeth” and “Sakina could not recall any gaps in his teeth.” (Habeas Corpus, pg. 136). Note the language – did Sergeant Yarbrough ask her specific questions about gaps in the suspect’s teeth?

At this time, the Night Stalker Task Force had received intelligence that the suspect might have bad teeth. On July 20, the previous victim, Somkid Khovananth, reported her attacker to be a dark-haired, tanned Mexican with gapped, rotten teeth. The Khovananth police sketch was being wideley circulated at the time of the Abowath murder.

Smell and Appearance:

Abowath described the attacker as having a “receding” or “recessed chest” but again, this does not fit Ramirez’s appearance. Even though he was underweight, his upper torso was broad.

It is a misconception that all Night Stalker victims mentioned his pungent smell. Only Sakina Abowath reported body odour like “stale sweat.” It is not in any other police statements. (Habeas Corpus pg. 136).

This forensic evidence, had it been properly presented and contextualized, may have raised serious doubt in the minds of the jury.

The Court Identifications

It is unclear whether Sakina Abowath identified Ramirez at the September 5, 1985 line-up. The Petition and the Los Angeles Times suggested she had. However, she must have been present in the police station because she identified stolen property on the same day in the next room.

Abowath was first asked to identify the suspect in court at the 1986 preliminary hearing. Asking a victim to identify a suspect in court creates a bias. The following is from Dr Kathy Pezdek who wrote for Ramirez’s appeals:

“An in-court identification is not a fair and unbiased identification procedure because the eyewitnesses are not given a set of similar looking individuals from which to select the perpetrator. There is also the suggestion in court that the defendant must be guilty because he is there.“

_{– Declaration of Dr Kathy Pezdek, Habeas Corpus Document 16.7}

Preliminary Hearing, 1986:

Sakina Abowath was curiously confused when asked to point her husband’s killer out in the courtroom, according to a Los Angeles Times reporter.

“The woman, who testified for about an hour, seemed not to notice defendant Richard Ramirez seated at a courtroom table until the prosecutor asked if she saw in the courtroom the man who attacked her.

“I beg your pardon?” the woman said, appearing confused.

“Do you see the man here today that was in your home that morning?” asked Deputy District Attorney, Philip Halpin.

The woman gazed around, sucked in her breath and almost shouted, “Oh, yeah – him!” as she pointed towards Ramirez.”

_{– Los Angeles Times, 16th April 1986}

A problem in the Night Stalker case was mass hysteria in California before Ramirez’s arrest. This meant that Ramirez appeared repeatedly on the television news and on the front pages of multiple newspapers. However, Sakina Abowath denied seeing Ramirez in any media, citing her Islamic faith – she avoided television during a grieving period.

The Trial, 1989:

Sakina Abowath became abusive and hysterical when she identified Ramirez in 1989. She screamed, “You son of a bitch! Why did you kill him?! You bastard!” and “Stand up! What’s wrong with you?” This was even more dramatic than the preliminary hearing where she had collapsed and had to be carried to the witness chair.

There were discrepancies in her testimony. Originally, she said she was woken by the popping sound of the gunshot that killed her husband. Elyas was clearly unresponsive or dead during her rape – he failed to come to her aid or make a noise. Yet, on the witness stand, she claimed Ramirez gratuitously killed her husband after she had given him everything.

Unfortunately, Sakina Abowath’s dramatic witness testimony stuck in this alternate juror’s mind instead of the fact her description did not match.

The most persuasive evidence of Richard Ramirez’s guilt was (1) the woman who broke down and cried during her testimony and said, “why did you have to kill my husband?”

_{– Alternate juror, Janice McDowell, Habeas Corpus document 20.8.}

Blonde Suspect Cross-Examination:

The matter of the light-haired killer returned. Sakina Abowath was asked why she told the police sketch artist that the suspect had “light brown” or “dishwater blonde” hair. Abowath blamed the bathroom light for making Ramirez’s black hair appear blonde – she insisted it was him.

The Habeas Corpus criticises Ramirez’s attorneys for not attacking Abowath’s credibility as a witness and suggest that she should have been “impeached.” That is to say they should have asked the judge to strike her testimony from the record so the jury could disregard it. (Habeas Corpus pg. 472).

The blonde suspect issue did not go unnoticed – some alternate jurors mentioned it in their appeals declarations.

“For example, I remember that at least one of the victims described their attacker as having dirty blonde hair and Mr Ramirez’s hair was clearly dark. That distinction was really significant and his lawyers didn’t do anything to adequately address just how significant this descrepancy was.”

_{– Alternate juror, Bonita Smith, Document 20.8.}

And:

Specifically, I recall that three witnesses testified that they were assaulted by a tall, skinny Caucasian man. Mr Ramirez is not Caucasian and, in my opinion, would not be confused with someone who is Caucasian. Mr Ramirez’s lawyers didn’t seem to notice or didn’t understand the significance of that testimony … the other jurors said they’d heard the same thing … yet, I have no recollection of Mr Ramirez’s lawyers emphasising this discrepancy in an effective manner…”

_{– Alternate juror, James Muldrow, Document 20.8.}

These alternative jurors did not seem to have raised an objection, but perhaps they were not in a position to because they were mere reserves.

The Stolen Property Evidence

As mentioned, on September 5, 1985, Sakina Abowath attended the property line-up. She identified jewellery, including two gold chains, earrings, an engagement ring, a necklace pendant, a television, and a VCR as items stolen by the murderer. These items were found in properties owned by a fence called Felipe Solano and his family. Solano was an acquaintance of Ramirez and given immunity from prosecution for telling police that Ramirez sold him the items. If true, this circumstantially tied Ramirez to several attacks.

However, it is not as clear-cut as it first seems. At trial, it transpired that Solano also received stolen property from other people and he was found to be a liar. The defence attorneys again failed to adequately impeach Solano. They also filed a motion against prosecutor Halpin to accuse him of subornation to perjury (calling witnesses he knew to be liars) but Judge Tynan ruled against their motion and to cross-examine Solano as normal.

Solano’s testimony crumbled as it transpired that he was protecting at least three other burglars. Two of those made police statements naming yet more burglars. None of this was thoroughly investigated and none of the informants and burglars testified at trial. The defence attorneys asked the prosecutor for addresses of these witnesses but the request was denied. Links to articles about the informants can be found at the end of this article.

Potential Suspects

Ramirez’s attorneys were supposed to raise the topic of third-party suspects who were known to both the police and the District Attorney. The Habeas Corpus petition goes as far as to suggest a suspect: the mysterious Julio – who was blonde, Mexican and six feet tall. (Habeas Corpus pg. 639).

Lastly, the defence were supposed to present a witness who saw something strange on the night of the attack: a security guard witnessed a Datsun pickup truck speeding away from the direction of Pinehill Lane (Carlo, pg 353). This witness was never called due to defence incompetence, and led to mocking from prosecutor Philip Halpin.

“Mr Hernandez told you that they were going to prove to you that there was a private security guard in the area of the Abowath murder… No nothing, no evidence of that at all.”

_{– Halpin, quoted on page 479 of the Federal Habeas Corpus.}

Swear Upon Satan?

Sakina Abowath testified that her husband’s killer ordered her to swear upon Satan. This is circumstantial evidence that appeared to link Ramirez – who called himself a Satanist – to the scene.

Later, at the Carns/Erickson attack in Mission Viejo similar satanic demands were allegedly made – and this gunman also wore heavy combat boots. If this was the same man who invaded the Abowath home, which is highly likely, then could this be the blonde man. In the Mission Viejo incident, victim Inez Erickson was unable to see the suspect properly, and identified Richard Ramirez by his walk.

In conclusion, the prosecution’s case against Richard Ramirez for the Abowath crime rested on a framework of suggestive eyewitness testimony, inconclusive ballistics, questionable shoeprint analysis, and circumstantial possession of stolen property. Crucially, the only biological evidence capable of identifying the rapist: semen from the vaginal swab excluded Ramirez as the source. The defense failed to properly present this fact to the jury, nor did they effectively challenge contradictory testimony or the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

Instead of certainty, the Abowath case reveals a troubling pattern of investigative tunnel vision. Changes in Sakina Abowath’s suspect description appear to track the evolution of police focus rather than objective memory. The failure to follow leads pointing to alternate suspects, the discrediting of potentially exculpatory forensic results, and the reliance on emotionally charged courtroom identification all undermine the integrity of this conviction.

-VenningB-

(9th Nov 2022, edited for clarity on 27th May 2025)

Sources:

Federal Habeas Corpus Petition, 2008.

Carlo, Philip. The Night Stalker: The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez, 2016 edition.

Further reading:

Another Night Stalker crime involving a suspect in boots.

The engineering of the Night Stalker’s appearance.

Video about the Abowath attack.