One can easily say Richard Ramirez did not commit the crimes based on the complete lack of evidence in some cases or the serological test results in others. But how do we explain how the victims’ stolen property ended up in the home of ‘fence’ Felipe Solano? After all, Solano testified that Ramirez sold him all of it and was given immunity from prosecution, as if he was an innocent man caught up in the Night Stalker’s evil web.
Because the detectives failed in their duty to thoroughly investigate other criminals because they were hell-bent on pursuing one perpetrator, the Solano issue is more complicated than the public have hitherto been told. You have Gil Carrillo and his lone serial killer theory to thank for that. He was able to convince all the other detectives that his theories were valid and gradually, they came to believe him. (Frank Salerno originally believed there were two killers working at the same time – far more plausible, and originally, the FBI rightly thought Carrillo’s theories were preposterous and discarded his files. See this video after 25:00).
Solano appeared to be exploiting disadvantaged and homeless Hispanic youths and drug-addicted women for financial gain. They would rob houses, he would buy items at low prices and hide them in his (and his son’s) properties. He had some influence over Ramirez and his mother even used him as a contact when her son was ‘missing’:
I didn’t know how to contact Richard directly after he moved to California, so when I wanted to speak to him, I called Felipe Solano. Somehow, Felipe always knew where Richard was and how to get in contact with him. Whenever I left a message for Richard with Felipe, Richard returned my call within 10 – 15 minutes without fail.”
Declaration of Mercedes Ramirez, Document 20-5.
Blaming Richard Ramirez
Felipe Solano had a gun inside his maroon Chevrolet truck. When asked why he had a weapon, he claimed he had it for “safety reasons” and had no idea what calibre it was. When asked why he felt so unsafe that he needed a gun, he claimed it belonged to “Rick.” It was a .38 blue steel revolver and was not connected to any Night Stalker crimes. Below is a timeline of Ramirez’s movements that come from both Solano’s claims and known police activity.
- Unspecified day in August: Solano bought jewellery from Ramirez at “ridiculous prices.
- 28th August: Rick asked him for money to leave Los Angeles, claiming he was “very hot” (as in wanted by police). Solano saw a gun-shaped object under his shirt.
- 30th August: Solano was watching TV when it was announced that Rick was the prime suspect. The news bulletin mentioned an orange Toyota. Solano had once seen him in an orange car. He panicked and moved out of his house. Solano claimed he received a phone call from Rick asking for $1000. He allegedly said, “In the morning, I’m going for it.” He did not provide insight into this conversation’s meaning.
- 30th-31st August: Detectives asked informant Sandra Hotchkiss to sell goods to Solano at a pool hall. The goal was to entrap him.
- 31st August: On the day of Ramirez’s arrest, Hotchkiss was asked to sell goods to Solano at his home. Solano was angry and guessed it was a trap.
Over the next few days, around 1,500 stolen articles were seized from Solano’s properties, including his son’s home in West Covina, and two family-owned table factories. After the initial raid, Solano admitted to having even more stolen goods. Solano’s son, Felipe Jr., and nephew, Alejandro, were never investigated for their role in hiding stolen property.
Solano, despite being personally acquainted with Ramirez, was invited to the tainted line-up, mingling with victims, which was improper because he had been involved in the theft of their property. This property was in an adjacent room. Of the items, less than a quarter had come from the victims.
Felipe Solano in Court
Solano’s stash of loot is regarded as the second most compelling piece of evidence in the Night Stalker case (after the Avia trainers). However his testimony was littered with inconsistencies, was corroborated by no one, and he even contradicted himself.
He could not provide a definite date for meeting Ramirez, claiming it was either late November or early December 1984. Nevertheless, he gave Ramirez his address and Ramirez attempted to sell him a car. A week later, he began receiving stolen electrical goods from him, then soon after, a steady stream of jewellery. However, Ramirez was arrested on 12th December and imprisoned for a month, so Solano must have been lying.
Solano admitted to ripping Ramirez off and he even received some items for free. He claimed he had no idea the items were stolen, but the idea he mistook Ramirez for a reputable salesman is laughable. He was asked, by prosecutor Halpin what type of hats Ramirez wore, but was led by being shown the hat from the Okazaki crime scene. It had also been reported in the press that the suspect wore an AC/DC hat, so of course Solano would confirm this. However, the defence failed to ask him what dates he saw Ramirez in the hat, so he was never eliminated as a suspect in that crime.
“Subornation to Perjury“
As mentioned in other posts (links at the bottom), Solano admitted he had been protecting other thieves, namely Eva Castillo, Cuba Hechavarria, Monje, Charlie, Cameron and Julio. He confessed that some of the stolen goods had come from her and were mixed in with those from Ramirez. By admitting he knew Castillo, Solano was forced to admit he had known Ramirez for longer, giving a new date of August 1984. However, he knew that Castillo was acquainted with Ramirez. And Castillo had gone to prison in September 1984. So it is likely they both knew Ramirez for longer than they claim.
Halpin knew Solano had lied – he had been going through the evidence and worked it out and Solano was made to identify the articles that came from Castillo. Halpin told the court that his star witness had lied – but that it was not “earth shattering.“ Instead, it was spun into an act of chivalry, with Halpin saying, “There’s nothing so unusual about [protecting a ‘lady’].“
Ray Clark asked for Solano’s testimony to be stricken from the record in its entirety. Daniel Hernandez claimed that Halpin had deliberately brought a liar to the witness stand and that this was subornation to perjury. The jury should not be forced to listen to a liar – and if proven to be a liar, the prosecution case would crumble: the shoes and eyewitness testimony was not enough. If this was discovered post-conviction, it might cause the convictions involving stolen property to be overturned. According to Philip Carlo, Halpin had a tantrum, in which he blamed Hernandez’s incompetence for not discovering Solano’s lies himself (which is fair), and moaned that he been accused of being a felon (for committing perjury by-proxy). It seems as if Halpin knew he had been caught out, and was annoyed that – despite his incompetence – Hernandez spotted what he was up to. Hernandez demanded a 402 Hearing to determine how much Halpin knew about Solano’s connections to other burglars but Judge Tynan refused and told the defence to cross-examine Solano as normal.
Was Solano Coerced by the Police into Framing Ramirez?
This is not mentioned in the Petition (where most of the above timeline comes from) but from Carlo’s book. As mentioned, Sandra Hotchkiss was ordered to sell a stolen necklace to Solano at his house. He immediately knew it was a set-up and asked her if she was an undercover detective. Hotchkiss was wired up to a recording device and claimed that what occurred next should have been caught on the tape: after Solano confronted her, police seized upon him and threw him to the ground, pinning him by the throat. Hotchkiss claimed Solano denied on the spot that he had received stolen goods from Ramirez and that they came from multiple people. Hotchkiss testified that she reported the incident to the District Attorney Ira Reiner, but she was ignored. Later, she said, Halpin and Sergeant Yarbrough of the Task Force came to visit her in prison, and Halpin warned her “not to screw up his case.” Of course, Hotchkiss was impeached and discredited by Yarbrough, so nobody appeared to notice the implications of what Hotchkiss was alleging – that Solano was beaten into blaming Ramirez and was given immunity if he stuck to the story that Ramirez was the only person who gave him the victims’ property.
Julio El Rubio
As mentioned, in their police statements, Manuel Hechavarria and Eva Castillo kept talking of a burglar acquaintance, ‘Julio.’ According to the Petition, in 1985, he was approximately 21, six feet tall with blonde, centre-parted hair. According to Castillo, Julio lived on Vinevale Avenue, Maywood, Los Angeles County, with two brothers. However, there is no evidence that Julio was ever traced and interviewed. It is possible that his surname was Romero. When Richard Ramirez was arrested under the alias “Ricardo Muñoz Moreno” and imprisoned for car theft, he claimed that he had borrowed the vehicle from “Julio Romero from the Greyhound bus depot,” and that he “Didn’t steal the car… I sort of knew the car was stolen.”
“Commander William Booth confirmed to several news agencies that the 25-year-old suspected serial killer was found driving a stolen car in the Harbor area December 12, 1984, and that he ultimately admitted to a misdemeanour auto theft charge.”
Police Correct Report on ‘San Pedro’ Arrest, Breeze Newspaper, 6th September 1985 (Document 17-8), pg. 26.
The Habeas Corpus lawyers suggest that Julio fits the description of the attacker in some of the incidents and repeatedly mentions him, believing he should have been investigated as a suspect. In particular, they believe Julio should have been investigated in connection with the Abowath crime in which the survivor described a blonde possible Hispanic who was six feet tall.
Philip Halpin made a fuss about being accused of perjury by proxy over the Solano, Castillo, ‘Cuba’ and Monje loot. But surely he also knew about Julio before the trial too. While there is no explicit connection, both Cuba and Castillo had mentioned Julio in their police statements as somebody with whom they committed crimes and knew him to commit burglary with Ramirez. Cuba said he and Ramirez had met Castillo through Julio. Surely Julio cannot be the only person in this network who did not trade with Solano? Halpin’s mocking is quoted in the Petition:
“Again in his opening statement Mr Hernandez promised you he was going to prove that Eva and Julio were committing these burglaries … Never happened, bunk, never happened.”
“So again, Mr. Hernandez harps upon Eva and Julio and yet nothing
came forward; nothing.”
“The same volume at page 20834, Mr. Hernandez told you that the defendant was working with a fellow … Well, you really don’t have any evidence of that.”
“Oh, again now, again … page 20837, talking about Felipe Solano … dealing in all sorts of things … there is absolutely no evidence of that at all … so that again is off the wall.”
“Page 20839 … Mr. Hernandez … indicated that the defendant will show that Felipe Solano bought items that he said he bought from the defendant but were actually bought from other people. Now, this is important. There is no such evidence in this case.”
“You see, Hernandez stands up and gives the clear indication that … Solano is a big dealer … Absolutely not one shred of evidence of that.”
Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus
This of course leaves us with more questions than answers and with most people deceased, we will probably never know. But it seems to suggest that detectives were determined to pin everything on Ramirez regardless of the lack of evidence and so many other leads. By not pursuing this grounds for reasonable doubt, the defence allowed the prosecution to mislead the jury as to Ramirez’s culpability, rendering this inaffective assistance of counsel and constituted another miscarriage of justice.
-VenningB-
P.S. we are writing a book and all the information will be more detailed with some extra information.
The other posts relating to Solano and the Greyhound Bus Posse are below:
13th December 2023
Expendable For A Cause. 
Leave a comment