*This post contains details of rape and sexual assault, which some may find upsetting*
The teeth don’t lie – or do they?
Carol Kyle was raped, sexually assaulted, and robbed at gunpoint, by a man she described as a male Mexican, mid to late 20s between 5ft10 and 6ft, having medium length, black wavy hair, around 175 pounds, with a slight Spanish accent. That initial description certainly fits with Richard Ramirez, doesn’t it? Until she gets to the teeth.
They were straight and white.
If there is one thing, apart from the Night Stalker crimes, that Richard is known for, it is his teeth. They were not straight or white, a point law enforcement were at great lengths to emphasise and make known. Even going so far as inspecting them, like a horse, and getting casts made after his arrest. It is interesting to note that the Netflix documentary skirts over what happened to Ms Kyle, possibly after making such a big thing about his teeth, it would draw attention to this rather large discrepancy.
From the 21st to 30th May Richard Ramirez was a very busy man, with dental appointments, travel to El Paso and back, after attending the first communion of his niece, and the brutal attack of two elderly sisters.
The horrific crime inflicted on Mabel Bell and Florence Lang is believed to have been carried out either late on 29th May or in the early hours of 30th, after which, he decided to travel 21 miles west to Carol Kyle’s house.
What happened?
On the 30th May 1985, at approx. 4am, Carol Kyle was woken in her Burbank home by a torch being shone in her face, and a small, dark, steel handgun pointed at her head. A man said “Get up. Don’t make any noise!”
The man told Kyle to move to the living room. She indicated that her son was in the house. They went to her son’s bedroom; the man turned on the light, waking up her son. He told both not to look at him, as he left the room and started ransacking the hall cupboard. Kyle was then handcuffed with her son, as the attacker shoved them both into the now emptied cupboard. The man demanded money, jewellery, and a VCR. (Writ of habeas corpus)
When he appeared again, he was holding a different gun that was shiny. This is the first deviation from the original crime report, where there is no mention of a second gun.
He told them to move into her son’s room, where he made them sit on the floor. He then covered them both with a sheet, telling them not to look at him, else he would “gouge their eyes out”. The man removed the handcuffs from Ms Kyle, and after putting her son back into the cupboard, took her to her bedroom. (There are slight discrepancies between the court documents and the police crime report as to when the handcuffs were first used)
The Assault of Carol Kyle
*this section details the rape and assault, which some may find upsetting*
The man tied Ms Kyle’s hands behind her back with pantyhose. He pushed her onto the bed, covered her head with a pillow, and screamed at her. He pounded on her back with his fist. Twice, he left the room and came back.
When the man returned for the second time, he removed the pillow and told her to lie down on her back on the bed. Her hands were still tied behind her back. The man ripped open the front of Kyle’s nightgown and removed her underpants. Kyle told the man she was having her period and had an infection. The man threatened to kill her. He took off his jacket, unzipped his pants, and started kissing her. (156 RT 17955-56.) The man got on top of her. He put his penis in her vagina. After a few minutes, he turned her over and put his penis in her anus; he ejaculated in her anus. (From the Writ of Habeas Corpus, outlining the prosecution’s case)
During this whole ordeal, Ms Kyle stated that her attacker did not put down the gun, the dark steel one, not the shiny one. It is unclear which gun she actually saw. No weapons used in any Night Stalker crimes were ever discovered in Richard’s possession.
After this, Ms Kyle spoke to her attacker for about fifteen to twenty minutes, in a very calm way, to her credit, as she must have been terrified and in pain.
The writ goes on to say:
“The man brought Kyle a robe because she was cold. (156 RT 17959-60.) He untied the pantyhose on her left wrist and later removed it altogether. He tried to tie her ankles with a telephone cord. The man said to her, “I don’t know why I’m letting you live. I’ve killed people before.” He told Kyle to tell police he wore a mask. (Id. at 17961-63.) He then brought Kyle’s son to her bedroom and handcuffed them to the bed. The man left handcuff keys on the mantle and told Kyle to make sure her daughter found them. In Kyle’s opinion, the man seemed confused, asking the name of the town and directions to the freeway. When the man left, Kyle thought his car sounded like a big, older car. Kyle’s son called 911; the police arrived within a few minutes after the call. (Id. at 17964-65.)”
Again, there are slight difference between the two documents, which probably occurs after subsequent interviews.
Physical evidence at the scene
To be blunt, there wasn’t much.
Burbank Police Officer Ronald Cervenka was called to Kyle’s home about 6:25 a.m. on May 30th, 1985. He found the front door locked, but the back door by the kitchen was ajar. There was no sign of forced entry, and it appeared that entry was gained through the kitchen door, by reaching upwards through the dog door. (156 RT 18014-15.) The house was ransacked. Ms Kyle and her son were still handcuffed. Officer Cervenka removed the cuffs with the key on the mantle and noted the handcuffs were larger than those used by police. He later took her to St. Joseph Medical Centre, where she was checked and a rape kit used.
We never hear about the results of the rape kit test, whereby, it must be assumed, that there was no match to Richard, otherwise they would have used it in court, and they did not. There is no mention of the result.
Evidence technician Robert Cestaro collected handcuffs, keys, and women’s clothing from the bedroom in Ms Kyle’s home. Cestaro also dusted for latent fingerprints. None were found.
Eyewitness identification
This is Carol Kyle’s eyewitness testimony, taken from the writ of habeas corpus.
What she doesn’t mention is her attacker being covered in blood. Why would this matter? Because Ramirez was also accused (and later convicted) of the brutal attack on Mabel Bell and Florence Lang, before his arrival at her home, that same morning. The attack was bloody, he would have to have been spattered, his clothes, hair. Yet there is no mention of this, no transfer of blood from one crime scene to another. No serological evidence that Richard was at either location.
This is what she said:
One more double incident, a considerable distance apart, with twenty one miles between Carol Kyle’s house and the home of Mabel Bell and Florence Lang, fifteen miles between the Kneidings and the Khovananths, and no cross-contamination in either instance. The man who was having trouble taking care of his teeth, and who seemed to be mostly living in cars, was able to forensically scrub himself down and switch weapons, leaving not a trace of himself anywhere. No hair, no blood, no semen, no fingerprints.
Carol Kyle said she was sure his teeth were clean, straight and white because he spent time chatting, laughing, and smiling with her, after the attack. If the man who attacked her had such good teeth, then that man could not have been Richard Ramirez. She assisted police artist, Fernando Ponce, with the preparation of a composite that was released on June 25th, showing the Latino male, with his side-parted hair, but not his white smile. Nearly one month had passed since her attack.
Deputy Sheriff Coleman met with Carol Kyle on August 30th, 1985, at her residence. She assisted him with yet another composite, the reason remains unclear, because on this date, they finally had Richard’s mugshot and knew who they were looking for. Deputy Sheriff Coleman insisted he had not seen the photograph of the suspect before the composite was executed. The two sketches look like two different people, and neither look anything like Richard Ramirez.
Below is a section clipped from the above composite, listed are California penal codes: 261 is rape, 459 is burglary and187 is murder. Thankfully Ms Kyle did not suffer murder, however, this composite details that penal code. It is already decided that the man who attacked Carol, without evidence, or arrest, (that would happen the following morning) is the same man wanted for multiple homicides in other incidents.
The day after she helped create the latest composite, Richard Ramirez was arrested. Ms Kyle saw him on TV numerous times and in the papers, however, she did not call the police to say this was the man who attacked her at gun point. She said nothing until the police contacted her to attend the tainted live line-up on 5th September 1985, where she identified him “by the inflection in his voice”, so not his teeth, then? Surely, as he spoke, they would have been visible? Perhaps she was influenced by the two fingers being held up to the assembled audience by the police officers who were in attendance that day. Richard was in place number two. She identified him again at the preliminary hearing, after months of media exposure.
Identification of property
Kyle identified jewellery taken from her home at the police property
line-up on September 5th, 1985. She identified a bracelet, silver chain, earrings, necklaces, and a ring.
Richard’s Family in Texas
Sergeant Perry testified that, on September 3rd, 1985, he obtained two warrants through the El Paso courts to search the houses of Richard’s sister and parents. Before the warrants were executed, his parents, his sister Rosario, and brother Julian Jr., voluntarily met with Sergeant Perry at El Paso Police Department. They consented to having their homes searched. While at the police station, Rosario turned over earrings and a bracelet. During a search of her home, she turned over a wooden box containing costume jewellery that had been given to her by her brother, Richard.
Defence failure – here we go again!
What did they get right? This:
“If the person who committed these crimes . . . had straight white teeth, the person was not Petitioner.”
They also questioned Ms Kyle’s failure to contact the police after seeing the suspect on TV numerous times, after his capture. Why, if she was so certain that he was the one who attacked her, did she wait?
THIS post examines the tainted line up procedure and, in particular how voice recognition, is NOT a reliable form of identification, especially when coupled with weapon focus and extreme stress factors. Had the defence had retained an expert witness, such as Dr Kathy Pezdek, the jury would have seen how unreliable the identification was.
(Declaration of Dr Kathy Pezdek, doc 16-7)
Talk about police influencing and leading a witness.
The defence presented no evidence on Richard’s behalf except for the failed alibi, discussed in the Bell/Lang incident. This discredited alibi could have been explained that Julian Sr had mistaken his dates, due to media pressure, stress, and the passage of time.
Not only did they fail to do this, they actually presented the alibi again as defence, when uncontroverted evidence from a Los Angeles dental office established that he was in Los Angeles on May 30th, 1985. This moment would have been better served had they mentioned his teeth! But no, that would be asking too much of this completely useless defence team.
Philip Carlo in the book The Night Stalker: The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez, stated that Sergeant John Yarbrough from the Night Stalker Task Force, testified that the clock at the crime scene of sisters Florence Lang and Mabel Bell had been ripped from it’s electrical socket at 5.29am, indicating that the attack was in progress at that time. Hold on here, did nobody notice the time discrepancy? Carol Kyle said she was woken at 4am, and that her son called the police around 6.20am. So how could Ramirez be in two places at once? How did Richard’s defence team let this slide?
We know Richard was present in El Paso for his niece’s communion party (photographic evidence exists), the chart below shows his possible movements during the dates in question.
In an effort to challenge identification of jewellery found at Rosario’s home, defence counsel argued, but failed to present evidence in support of the contention, that the recovered jewellery was not unique and lacked distinctive characteristics. They failed to investigate the numerous other individuals who were involved with burglaries with Ramirez, and failed to investigate the trail of stolen property changing hands, in and around the bus depot and at Felipe Solano’s, who was impeached for perjury.
The prosecution urged conviction because of the similarities to the Dickman incident. Below is a summary of the findings of expert witness and criminologist, Steve Strong. There are similarities, those being that there is no hard evidence that he was at either crime scene.
Dickman Incident
- No fingerprints belonging to Richard
- Inconsistent eyewitness testimony (she changed it)
- Trail of stolen property not questioned
- No serology
- Failed to recognise him on TV as the man who attacked her, even after seeing him numerous times
Kyle Incident
- No fingerprints belonging to Richard
- Unreliable eyewitness testimony
- Trail of stolen property not questioned
- No serology
- Saw him on TV but did not call the police.
In conclusion
Richard Ramirez was found guilty of the rape and burglary, even though no physical evidence that he was the perpetrator was found. He was convicted because of the “spill-over” from both the Dickman and Bell/Lang incidents, the jewellery, and an unreliable witness testimony; he had at various times been described by other eyewitnesses as blonde, Asian, short, and Caucasian.
And a handcuff key. The handcuff key the man who attacked Ms Kyle left on her mantlepiece.
The “straight, white teeth”, so clearly seen by Carol Kyle, and clearly not in the mouth of Richard Ramirez, were never taken into account.
A competent defence, as a last resort, could have fallen back on his mental health, in mitigation, at penalty phase. However, as we have shown, Richard was denied effective assistance of counsel, in violation of his constitutional rights, and was failed in every way, by a defence team whose duty it was to develop a strategy, challenge, and cross examine the prosecution’s case.
The job of the prosecutors was to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not.
~ Jay ~
Expendable For A Cause. 
Leave a comment