A Web of Informants: Part 1. Closing In

A series of events caused detectives to home in on Richard Ramirez. After the Khovananth attack, the LAPD disseminated a police bulletin as well as a ‘wanted poster’ of the suspect. They told the public that this man, a Latino, had attacked a dozen people and was armed and dangerous. His distinguishing features were curly brown hair, and stained, gapped teeth, as well as wide, crazy eyes. Sometimes he wore a baseball cap and he preferred black clothing.

The police bulletin

We now know from the victims’ original police statements that this is untrue. The police had already decided the Night Stalker’s appearance, based on an encounter with ‘Richard Mena’ (Richard Ramirez’s alias) in which he drew a pentagram on a stolen car. The Khovananth attack was the only incident where the suspect’s features matched who police believed was the Night Stalker.

Two Ricks in Two Cities

By August 1985, Los Angeles was in a state of hysteria, with many people reporting sightings of the Night Stalker. Police were inundated with thousands of calls about shady neighbours, or even people in the local pizza parlour who vaguely resembled the composite sketch. Tall, curly-haired men were being stopped and searched. Ramirez was unlucky. Due to his looks and his proclivity for burglary, two seemingly separate sets of ‘friends’ reported him to the police.

On 26th August, a mysterious man called Alejandro Espinoza called the police (in Los Angeles) and reported that he had a friend called ‘Rick’ who sold stolen goods to a ‘fence’ named Felipe Solano – close to the dates of murders. Espinoza later went ‘missing.’

Next, in Lompoc, Califonia, Earl Gregg and his wife Deleen had recently received some jewellery from Ramirez, while visiting Deleen’s mother Donna Myers in San Pablo (these events and relationships are detailed in this post).

Earl Gregg’s sister Laurie Ochoa suggested Ramirez was the killer – after all, a murder had recently occurred in San Francisco (Peter Pan), where Ramirez had recently visited. Despite Earl and Deleen’s incredulity, Ochoa successfully encouraged her brother to call the Lompoc Police Department to report their ‘burglar friend Rick.’ Lompoc PD contacted San Francisco PD, as a stolen bracelet was engraved with an S.F. driver’s licence number.

It turned out the items Ramirez had given them were not from the Pan murder, but a burglary in the Marina District. However, SFPD’s Inspector Frank Falzon had a hunch that the crimes were connected and he demanded that Lompoc PD put him in contact with the Greggs. He and his partner Carl Klotz interviewed them and they guided them to Donna Myers.

Myers described Ramirez, which matched the false information the two Los Angeles police agencies had been spreading. Myers told police about Ramirez’s childhood friend Armando Rodriguez, and the SFPD detectives travelled to El Sobrante to find him. Rodriguez attempted to give Ramirez an alibi.

Because detectives were already persuing a lead on ‘Richard Mena’ via city dentists, having two different informants naming a ‘burglar called Rick’, was a very promising lead. Especially as ‘Rick’ had visited San Francisco in the same week as a murder.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with police assuming a connection and following this lead, but everything wrong with continuing to hunt down one man, especially after a tangled web of potential suspects began to emerge. From this point, events snowballed for Richard Ramirez, and weak circumstantial evidence appeared to come together.

Next: Jesse Perez.

-VenningB-

1/11/23

25 responses to “A Web of Informants: Part 1. Closing In”

  1. I’m looking forward for the book!
    Are you the author Venning?

    Like

    1. Hi, yes, right now the book is about 112,000 words and growing. I have no idea when it will be finished, as it’s always a slow process but yes, there will eventually be a great big book. It will be very detailed.

      Like

      1. Hi, Venning. Take your time. i’ll be waiting to read it anyway.
        I find the idea very interesting and good: interesting, because I could not handle the Carlo book, I’d like to read something decent about Ramirez; good, because not everyone can handle reading court documents, but majority can read books (I hope :D).

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I think people avoid the entire court section of Carlo, which is a shame as it’s the only good bit in my opinion, as he clearly had access to court transcripts or even some footage.
        The rest… Not so much. It seems to be based on Carrillo’s stories about what the victim was thinking up to the point of their death. This is only believable if one believes Carlo spoke to them via séance, because it certainly wasn’t Richard confessing!
        But yeah I’ve structured it in a way that the crime is explained first, then the reason RR was convicted. That way it forces people to understand.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I could notmake it to the pages when he writes about the court, because of his narrative style – he described crime scenes, as if he was there I saw everything by his eyes, saw that it was done by Ramirez. Also, I’ve noticed mistakes, that condraticted facts in the documents, I can not recall them right now. I’m suprised he questioned the court in his book. Good for him. Bad that people skip it.

        Like

      4. He wrote the crime section like fiction, which it was, in many ways. It is not believable, nor is it truth. The trial section is the only bit worth paying attention to, as he does raise questions. That said, I am not keen on it, because of the first section, which is laced with speculation and untruths.

        Like

      5. I think it’s crazy that Carlo contradicted himself in his own book. I suspect the murder section is based on Gil Carrillo’s ideas about what happened. Then in the court bit, Carlo highlights the inconsistencies… Didn’t he pause for a moment and think ‘hang on, the court evidence doesn’t match the crime” ??? Bizarre. Did he even read his own words back?

        Liked by 1 person

      6. I wondered that, too. The sections were seemingly two different “stories”. Very weird!

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Some people don’t see patterns in stuff … but it’s his OWN book!

        Liked by 1 person

      8. I assume he thought no one would care, or even notice. Which is true, because how many have we come across who get all excited about the crimes, yet do not care about the flaws in the judicial process?

        Liked by 1 person

      9. Yep. Which is sad. Like you said, he’s dropped a trail of bread crumbs. Bread crumbs of innocence.

        Like

      10. He did, but ruined it with his need to sell sensational, gratuitous killings, without stopping to think.

        Like

  2. Hi, the three of us are writing it, but Venning is the one structuring and pulling it all together, basically doing the hard work. We’re excited about it, as you can imagine.

    Like

    1. That’s a very good idea you have with a book. I’m looking forward to read it on the blog. Good luck to you all.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Hi I really dont understand what this Carlo book is supposed to be at all …..can it be taken seriously at all ? What were the Deals between Carlo and Ramirez ..?

        Like

      2. It’s really strange. He put these sort of clues about reasonable doubt in the book. He made Richard out to be a monster yet simultaneously reported on the evidence that had potential to exonerate him. The end result is quite treacherous. I wonder how Richard felt about it. He invited Carlo to his wedding but called him a weasel in a phone call. I wonder if he felt betrayed.

        I don’t take the entire killings bit seriously. It’s so ridiculous, even giving victims dialogue! In my opinion, only the court case stuff is worth reading.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Yes ..the trial Part is allright . In the book Carlo writes frequently about The Killer …I did not like that , I must admit..The book is easy to read and there are parts where I like his style but in general ? This book dämonizes Richard on the one side like almost everyone else did ..and on the other hand it brings confusion again . I wonder how they managed to finish the book. I assume it was nt easy for the two of them ..but obviouslsy they finally made it. I would have wished it had been more sincere….Thanks to both of them ..there is a book at all !

        Like

      4. I honestly think Carlo lied about how much time he spent with Richard. People assume there are loads of confession tapes that Carlo’s wife owns but I don’t believe he would confess to the murders when he still had a trial and appeals pending and was telling psychiatrists (Evans) that there was no evidence of his guilt. I am willing to bet the only time he spoke to Richard is when he did the interview at the end of the book and the rest is just exaggeration. He’s another Carrillo. A lot of big claims but no evidence to support it. The bits of tape we have heard are mostly in that interview at the back of some editions of the book.

        I hate how Carlo thinks Richard killed 40 more people in El Paso. That is ridiculous. El Paso doesn’t have 40 unsolved murders, and Gil Carrillo, in his obsessed craze, actually contacted El Paso police to see if they had any crimes to pin on Richard and they didn’t. Yet people quote Carlo’s “40 murders” rubbish all the time, including Arturo Hernandez!

        I don’t know if you’ve heard it but there’s a recording where Richard asks Carlo, “you’re not gonna make me out to look bad are you?” It seems he was naïve and trusted him to write a nice biography of him or something! If he confessed to violent crimes, why would he say that? Then there was the way he shyly laughed when admitting he loved cocaine. He doesn’t come across as someone who just spilled the entire truth to an author on tape.

        Richard also didn’t like people digging into his family life so it’s weird that he gave the green light for Carlo to meet them. I can only imagine he/they thought they’d receive money for it so he finally allowed permission (they didn’t get any!). He probably deluded himself into thinking he could support his family with the book.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Yes..There aren t any confessions on tape I guess Mr Carlo just boasted ..I did not know about the 40 additional murders in El Paso….Sounds just ridiculuos .But…anyway I have no idea about publishing books about serial Killers in the US …..Richard Ramirez himself seemed very naiv..He was to unexperienced in life itself and especially in dealing with people like Carlo and Co.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. I came to mention the “You’re not gonna make me look bad, are ya?”, but you’ve said what I would say. It’s implausible to think Ramirez would confess all to Carlo and then add on that. He also told Carlo he never confessed anything to Carrillo. In my opinion, Carlo and Carrillo have muddied already murky waters. As we’ve already said, the trial part of the book is credible and interesting, we have a snapshot of Carrillo and Salerno interferring, and also the underhand actions of Halpin regarding blood evidence. The opening of the book reads like a cime fiction novel, not a biography. Whatever happened, Ramirez was well and truly stitched up.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I agree with you, Carillo’s book is just bizarre.
    The thing that is runing it for me is – it is presented as a biography book (as much as i know), but is written as fiction. The part I read was too much of a fiction. And yes – too much of contradiction in one person’s book.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Richard should have had a real good friend at his side to help him deal with all those medium clever guys……Imagining the different Szenarios…I feel a little tear in my eye…

    Like

  5. Yes, that’s him.
    I find it weird how Solano is omitted from documentaries about the case. They will talk about stolen goods and the informant Jesse Perez but never Solano’s role in all of it.

    Like

    1. Not as far as we know. All I’ve read is that the informant Sandra Hotchkiss claimed that she was fitted with a recording device when she was sent to Solano’s house. She said he initially said he had nothing from Richard and changed it after the police “roughed him up.” He changed the date he said he met Richard too according to the 2008 writ. His court testimony seemed to be a mess of contradictions and I wish we could see the transcripts.

      Like

    2. Mercedes said in her declaration that whenever she couldn’t get hold of Richard she would call Felipe, who always seemed to know where to find him.

      Like

Leave a comment