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-

15 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).

        Like

      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?

        Like

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

        Like

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

        Like

      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?

        Like

      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 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 1 person

Leave a comment