When Reasonable Questioning Gets Shut Down.
* Images may require a desktop for greater clarity *
So many “true crime” podcasts and channels are available to us; a brief scan of my YouTube account reveals countless lists. Checking out the episodes dedicated to Ramirez, you will notice one recurring thing; they are all the same. It is the familiar regurgitated theme, the repetitive stories, and the way that no one asks questions, not important ones.
Many of them feature a well-known person associated with the case doing the rounds, the same old routine, while the podcast interviewer seems shocked at what they are hearing, and largesse and bonhomie are the names of the game.
Is it an interview, though? No pertinent questions are forthcoming, and none pick up on any inconsistencies.
Indeed, if you are setting yourself up as a true crime expert, research the case you want to discuss.
Research it properly, not do a quick Google search, a flick through the Carlo book (where fiction is rife). Perhaps a binge-watch of the Netflix shop of horrors, Night Stalker – The Hunt for a Serial Killer, suffices?
The podcast host punctuates the monologue in varying tones of “Oh wow!” And “Really?” but there is no substance.
Occasionally, the wise and all-knowing “There’s this thing called hybristophilia..” is wheeled out. That is ridiculous because the crimes sexually attract those with the mental illness known as hybristophilia; in other words, they want Ramirez to be as guilty as hell; you take away their paraphilia at your own risk. So no, people who ask questions about this trial are not always driven by any sexual fetish.
We hear about the Avias, of course, and sometimes the model number is wrong, going against what the Crime Lab criminalist testified to at the trial. Considering the unbelievable Avia story connected to some of the crimes, you would hope they’d at least try to get it right.
If you, as a viewer of these crime-fest interviews, ask a question in the comment section, and the question deviates from the accepted trope, three things happen.
- Your comment has been deleted.
- The podcaster doesn’t know the answer and does not attempt to answer.
- The podcaster says, “So you’re saying he’s innocent”.
The third scenario is the go-to response, even if your question does not concern Richard’s innocence.
I can give an example of that. Someone I know dared to put a question to the true crime expert who was hosting the interview. They asked about the newspaper reports and police comments regarding child abductions in March 1985. They backed up the question with links regarding the short, blonde man, described independently by the children concerned and an adult witness. Rather than admit he didn’t know, his response was testy, “So you think he’s innocent of all the crimes?” A nonsensical reaction from someone who had no clue about the nuances of this case. Or if they did, they were not going to discuss that.
One can imagine that the unsavoury image of the coaching of victims and eyewitnesses is rather unpalatable for some, but open wide and swallow it down.
Deputy Public Defender Judy Crawford, who was attending the charade of a line-up on behalf of Allen Adashek, the public defender briefly assigned to Richard, witnessed a police officer talking to the children present whilst holding up two fingers in precisely the same way as other officers were seen doing to the assembled audience. Richard, as we know, stood in place number two. You do not have to be a genius to understand what is happening. There is no dewy-eyed rhetoric of victims independently identifying anyone here; public defenders saw it, and photographic evidence proves it.
“The Bad Man is number two, got that?”
In an hour long private session in Judge Nelson’s chambers, Ramirez’s attorneys drew attention to the irregularities of the line-up, where according to the news reports, eyewitnesses were not only allowed to confer, they could also hear one another identify Richard, and see the police indicate that number two had been picked. They may has well whistled into the wind for all the good it did.
Maria Hernandez did not testify that day because of the “in camera” hearing, she testified the following Monday.
And here’s a video..
A Man of Many Faces
The investigators disregarded all previous descriptions given by these children; of course, they couldn’t all have possibly seen a light-haired man; they were mistaken, and, as law enforcement said, children have a hard time remembering what they’ve seen.
Rather like poor Lillie Doi, whose description of her light brown-haired attacker did not sound remotely like Richard, and accompanying composite drawing never made it into the public arena; the papers declared she was short-sighted. You could bet your life if she recalled a tall, dark-haired, young Hispanic; her eyesight and recollections would have been satisfactory.
Maria Hernandez, who, after getting the police artist to draw a man with facial hair, then picked out another man from suspect photos shown to her; who, after not recognising Ramirez as the man who attacked her and killed her friend, after she’d seen him on TV, suddenly and inexplicably picked him out of the line-up. Adding on her witness card that although he had a “little beard and moustache” on the night of the crime, “I feel it’s two”.
From that, one must assume the Night Stalker had a quick shave before the murder of Tsai-Lian Yu, which happened minutes afterwards; eyewitnesses at this incident talked of a short Asian man, approximately 5ft7, but there was no mention of any beard or moustache.
It may interest you to know that another victim, Sophie Dickman, also picked out a photograph of the SAME man Maria had chosen, and who also did not recognise Richard as her attacker even after seeing him on TV and in the papers, which is hardly surprising, as Sophie twice told investigators that the man who attacked her was 5ft 8. Strangely, she somehow managed to identify Richard from his position of number two. Or Sakina Abowath’s descriptions which curiously morphed from a blondish-haired man to light brown and then just brown.
Richard Ramirez, described as blonde, dark, short, tall, Asian, white, shaggy-haired, curly-haired, hair combed back, must have been a shapeshifter of epic proportions. He is everyone and no one. Should I mention the straight, white teeth, too?
It is disturbing to realise that because of corrupt procedures, and atrocious defence lawyers, there will forever be a question mark hanging over this case, and no number of public appearances will take that away. The questions will remain; one can hold up the mirror, but the reflection we seek will never be there. It is a landscape of shadows and doubt.
You are not allowed to ask questions, don’t stray from the narrative, ok?
However, if you do ask, drop them some links:
8-Year-Old Girl Kidnaped, Found – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
“Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds — justifications, confirmations, forms of consolation without which they can’t go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner.”
Anne rice – The Vampire Lestat
Something to ponder perhaps.
~ Jay ~
Expendable For A Cause. 
Leave a reply to sarah1997 Cancel reply