Expendable For A Cause.

On March 28, 1985, Maxine and Vincent Zazzara were shot dead. The Zazzaras owned a pizza business managed by an individual named Bruno Polo. On the evening of March 28, Polo reportedly went to the Zazzara residence to drop off the daily proceeds from the pizza restaurant. He would later tell police the Zazarras did not answer the door, although the front door was open, the lights were on, and their vehicles were home. He returned the following morning and found the money he had left the previous evening had yet to be moved from where he had left it. At this point, he decided to enter the residence. He saw Vincent Zazzara lying on the couch with blood on his head. He ran out of the home and went to a neighbor’s to call Vincent Zazzara’s son. Apparently, they also called the police because law enforcement arrived at the Zazzara home shortly after this.

Maxine and Vincent Zazzara were both shot with a small caliber gun. Maxine’s eyes had been removed postmortem. Law enforcement found a pool of blood on the porch of a house across the street that was never elaborated upon. A bullet fragment was found on the bedroom floor, and jewelry was found in a bedroom drawer. A coin collection was found intact. A burglary had occurred at the Zazzara residence six weeks earlier, so law enforcement could not determine what had been stolen during this crime, if anything. Considering a coin collection, bags of money, and jewelry were found in the home, it doesn’t appear burglary was a motive.

The Avia Shoeprints

Police determined the point of entry was a window at the rear of the house. A latent fingerprint was lifted from the window screen. A shoe print was found on a tub under the rear window of the point of entry. Other shoe prints found outside the house near the bedroom window were similar to the shoe print on the tub. Two different shoe print patterns were found in the same area but the others – made by Vans – had come from the Zazzaras themselves.

The Zazzara crime scene was the first place the Avia shoe print was found. It was later found at the Doi, Bell and Lang, Cannon, Bennett, Nelson and Khovananth crime scenes and became the prosecution’s most compelling evidence.

Below, images of prints and casts from the crime scene:

The shoe impressions were examined by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department criminalist, Gerald Burke. He opined that shoe prints at the scene matched an Avia Aerobics model in size 11-½ to 12.

Since the infamous Avia shoe was paramount in Richard’s trial, his attorneys needed to retain a shoe print identification expert, but failed to do so. The most they could say was that it never proven that Richard ever had or wore any type of Avia shoe.

It was not until 2004 and Ramirez’s automatic direct appeal that flaws in the prosecution’s evidence were revealed. His appellate lawyers enlisted shoeprint identification expert Lisa DiMeo. She determined that several different types of shoes could have made the prints on the yellow tub pictured above.

“The partial patent print on the top of the yellow bucket depicts a herringbone pattern of unknown origin. The size or design of the shoe that made this impression is unknown … any shoe exhibiting a similar herringbone pattern could have been the source of this partial print.”

– _{Supplementary Declaration of Lisa DiMeo, Document 7.20.}

The prints in the garden border were from Aerobics models but may not have been size 11.5 or 12 like Burke thought. DiMeo said:

“The two impressions that were cast in the Zazzara incident are sufficient to identify Avia Aerobics as the source based on several design features, however the exact size cannot be determined. The inclusion of the various sizes increases the pool of possible sources by tens of thousands.”

– _{Supplementary Declaration of Lisa DiMeo, Document 7.20.}

Ballistics

LASD firearms examiner Robert Christansen determined bullets found at the scene were fired from a .22-caliber firearm. The three recovered bullets were mutilated at 70% and 80%. An additioal .45 bullet was distorted at 95%. See his report below.

Richard’s attorneys presented no evidence to challenge the flawed ballistics or shoeprint analysis. They made no objections, retained no experts, and failed to introduce third-party suspect theories – leaving the prosecution’s case unchallenged.

Eventually, the prosecution expert, Edward Robinson, claimed the bullets matched the Khovananth slugs. The previous examiner, Christansen, said that he originally thought the Khovananth slugs were from a .25 ACP.

Maxine Zazzara’s eyes were not found in Richard’s parent’s home, his sister’s home, or in any of his belongings. They were never recovered. We have never heard anything about the fingerprint on the window screen, which leads us to conclude that it was not identified as Richard’s. If it had been, it would certainly have been used against him in court.

Mafia?

As with all the crimes Richard was convicted of, we’re left with more questions than answers. The most pressing is: who really killed Vincent and Maxine Zazzara? The evidence does not prove Richard Ramirez was responsible. So why was law enforcement so determined to pin this crime on him? The police claimed they looked into a possible Mafia connection but deemed it not worth pursuing. But how thoroughly was that lead really investigated?

Peter Zazzara, Vincent’s son, told two separate offciers, LASD Detective Russell Uloth and Deputy Sheriff Paul Archambault, that his father had ties to the Mafia and was involved in narcotics. He believed his father and stepmother may have been killed because of this. Vincent had previously served prison time for federal bank fraud, and Maxine had been his attorney. Yet at the preliminary hearing, Judge Nelson barred this line of questioning, preventing the Mafia theory from ever reaching trial.

If Ramirez truly was the notorious cat burglar the prosecution claimed, would he have left behind jewelry, a valuable coin collection? He wouldn’t – but someone did.

Steve Strong, a crime scene analyst and former LAPD detective working for Ramirez’s appellate lawyers, reviewed all of the Night Stalker crimes. He noted there was no distinctive pattern. This is what he said about the Zazzara crime:

“No fingerprints found belonging to petitioner [Ramirez]. Exact model or size of Avia shoe not determined. No weapon found or recovered from petitioner. No property recovered. Could have been more than 1 person [perpetrator]. Location: Whittier.”

– _{From the Declaration of Steve Strong, Document 7.21.}

KayCee

Jan 25, 2023