Expendable For A Cause.

The Railroading Of Richard Ramírez

And Justice for All

*images may need desktop viewing for clarity*

“After a recess, in another hearing held in the court’s chambers which was held outside of the presence of Petitioner, the court and the parties discussed courtroom security. Trial counsel was concerned that there had been no screening of the members of the public which were coming to watch the trial. Trial counsel was concerned because the defense attorneys had received death threats”.
Petition of Habeas Corpus, page 578

The above quote is taken from the main document of the 2008 petition; it is regarding a hearing concerning security within the courtroom; death threats had been made towards the defence attorneys by members of the public who felt that Ramirez should not receive legal representation. These same people were probably of the same opinion as Mayor Tom Bradley, who declared to the press that a trial wasn’t needed as he was guilty, and he knew that based on the evidence he had seen.

This statement, made after his award ceremony honouring the “Hubbard Street Heroes”, is one of many made to the media before the arraignment. One can imagine the mayor, followed by an array of torch and pitchfork-waving citizens, hustling Ramirez up to the door of the gas chamber; no trial needed. What a strange understanding of “liberty and justice for all”. Death threats for simply trying to do their job?

Mayor Bradley and the people of Los Angeles, collectively suffering from memory loss, forgot that under the 6th Amendment, every defendant is entitled to a fair trial and the effective assistance of counsel.

This is part four in a series of posts about the defence.

Lawyer Roulette – Cronic and Strickland, a Brief overview

The petition repeats two words: “Cronic” and “Strickland”.
So what do they mean? In brief, Cronic and Strickland are two Supreme Court cases that decide the two-pronged testing used to determine the effectiveness of counsel, principally for indigent defendants.
Strickland looks back at a trial where the outcome has already been determined and asks if the attorneys provided effective assistance of counsel and if incompetence prejudiced the outcome.

Cronic looks forward at the start of the proceedings to try and assess if certain factors are present or absent, and if so, the court should assume that ineffective assistance of counsel will occur. (Source: 6ac.org)
Prosecutor Halpin, well aware of the implications, had to remind Richard’s attorneys how to do their job more than once.

“The overarching principle in Cronic is that the process must be a “fair fight.” Cronic notes that the “fair fight” standard does not necessitate one-for-one parity between the prosecution and the defence. Rather, the adversarial process requires states to ensure that both functions have the necessary resources at a level their respective roles demand.“

As the U.S. Supreme Court notes: “While a criminal trial is not a game in which the participants are expected to enter the ring with a near match in skills, neither is it a sacrifice of unarmed prisoners to gladiators.”

“Cronic’s necessity of a fair fight requires that the defence attorney put the prosecution’s case to the “crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.” A constructive denial of counsel occurs if a defence attorney is incapable of challenging the state’s case or barred from doing so because of a structural impediment.”
Source: 6ac.org

The Judicial Lottery

On January 6th, 1987, the court gave the following soliloquy in a closed session. This was exactly two years before the L.A. Times news report above.

“Now, I am calling this hearing, Mr. Ramirez, to tell you that I reluctantly have to tell you that in my opinion your lawyers are incompetent.

Now, I have had this case for six months, and I must say that I am convinced that your lawyers are nice guys, good company, maybe good fellows to spend an evening with. I am also convinced that they are dedicated to your defense emotionally. But I must tell you that, in my opinion, they are not competent to handle your case.

I don’t think that they have sufficient experience in the law. I don’t think that they have the staffing, if you will, or whatever, to do the job…I am telling you now…I don’t think they know the law well enough, I don’t think they know the rules of evidence well enough, they are not ready to present the evidence and push it through….I am just telling you this because I have no personal axe to grind at all, I simply want to see that whatever happens in this case is done right and you get your rights protected, that whatever conclusion is reached is right. And I am telling you now that your rights are not being protected.”
Habeas Corpus, page 204 – Judge Dion Morrow – Prosecutor Halpin moved to have him taken off the case.

When the Hernandezes initially requested to substitute themselves in place of Joseph Gallegos, Arturo assured the court that they were fully funded and that paying for the defence wouldn’t be a problem. “All the resources are there…no matter how long it takes” (from a hearing on October 22nd, 1985). He failed to inform that court that there had been no money incoming from the family and that they hoped to be paid from the proceeds of any film or book deal obtained. When the hoped-for agreement didn’t materialise, as Ramirez refused to sign a contract, Arturo took on extra cases, alongside Richard’s trial, for the next four years.

Even before the trial began, the lack of funding available to the defence was causing delays; Arturo explained to the court that as “Mr Ramirez is an indigent defendant he doesn’t have the means or resources , as the People do, to maintain as pace that is required by the People”. (from a recorded transcript 906-907)

The court, inpatient and annoyed, chastised the Hernandezes for their constant tardiness and for raising financial concerns for their delays. They had, after all, assured the court that their defence was fully funded during the hearing for the substitution of counsel.

“Financial concerns are not reason really (sic) to continue this case. You owe [Mr. Ramirez] a duty of at least warm zeal on this case, and of course, as officers of the court—this court, owe prompt attention to this case.”
(Id. at 3007.) Habeas Corpus, page 230

Daniel Hernandez’s Health

By May of 1987, the Hernandezes closed their local offices, telling the court in a sealed recorded transcript that they were “broke”, and moved back to their office in San Jose. The court appointed another attorney, Michael Carney, to help file motions. The situation didn’t improve; Daniel and Arturo were in San Jose working on other cases and needed to communicate with Carney, which they didn’t. These other cases, worked concurrently with the Night Stalker trial, meant that none of their clients were getting the defence they were entitled to.

In January 1989, with the trial just beginning, Daniel Hernandez tried to force the court into giving him funding (this would only be allowed if the court agreed to appoint him, which they refused to do), claiming that his client’s defence would suffer without additional funding.

“Mr. Hernandez, when you tell the court that if you don’t get appointed you are going to withdraw, or if you don’t get appointed you are going to do less than diligent work on this case, as you appear to state in these motions, that is frightening to me because that is extortion. And I will be honest with you, this court is not going to be extorted.”
(Judge Tynan. Sealed January 20th, 1989, 140A RT 16005.)

Judge Tynan accused Daniel Hernandez of lying to Judge Soper about their financial situation at the time of the substitution in October 1985. Extortion failing, Daniel tried another tactic in that he was too ill with stress to function correctly as an attorney. One might question his ability as an attorney in the first place, with or without stress.

*Letter to the court from Daniel Hernandez’s doctor, document 7 -4.*

“Perhaps realizing its deficient performance, counsel admitted, “I am under some medication, I am not making a lot of sense sometimes, and I advise the court I have been under medication for the last two weeks. Let the record be clear that if you are having some problems, it is perhaps because of my medication.” (16 RT 741.) A reasonable justification for abridging Petitioner’s right to counsel does not include being medicated.”
Habeas Corpus, page 314, a pithy response from the Habeas lawyers.

In June 89, Daniel again blamed his lack of funds for not presenting any defence witnesses, witnesses like Eva Castillo (who strangely disappeared) and others who should have been investigated. He asked for a delay, which was (unsurprisingly) denied. This was the exchange:

“You are going to be in the same boat, aren’t you? You are dead broke now. You are not eating.”

“I’ve been going without anything for myself for four years and now I have to eat my pride again and say I’m broke, and even then, you stuff it down my throat.” (Sealed June 26th, 1989 hearing, 199A RT 23267). Habeas Corpus Page 233.

The lack of funding was a direct result of their agreement with the Ramirez family; this “conflict of interest” was the price paid by Richard for their unethical, third-party contract arranged by his family. No money was raised, and Arturo Hernandez claimed that the Ramirez family’s inability to pay would cause them “to give less than adequate representation and render ineffective assistance of counsel to our client, because we have to work and try to survive and maintain some sort of practice.” (Sealed September 29th, 1987, 33C RT 2358

Arturo Hernandez appeared to be threatening the court with an inadequate performance unless they were court-appointed. The reasons why the court refused to appoint them, unlike Ray Clark, whom they did appoint, are explained HERE.

Ramirez was stuck in the middle of this battle of wills, unable and unwilling to concentrate. Tynan thanked Richard Salinas, Daniel’s assistant, for keeping him amused, like a child. I am surprised they didn’t supply crayons and a colouring book to complete the gesture.

Timeline of Incompetence

Lists can be tedious. However, this list is essential, demonstrating how badly the defence handled the case.

From September 26th 1988 to January 23rd 1989, Daniel Hernandez conducted voir dire without the assistance of co-counsel Arturo Hernandez. Voir dire being the process where potential jurors are vetted for suitability for serving and, more importantly, weeded out for biases.
On October 3rd, 1988, the trial court sent a letter to Arturo Hernandez regarding his absence from the trial.
On October 18th, 1988, the court issued a body attachment for Arturo Hernandez and ordered it held until October 24th, 1988. A body attachment is a warrant issued by a judge authorising law enforcement to arrest someone and bring them to court.
October 25th, 1988, Arturo Hernandez appeared in court to explain his absence from trial and requested to be relieved from Richard’s defence, stating he could not communicate with him.
February 21st 1989, Daniel Hernandez did not appear at trial due to illness during the prosecution’s case-in-chief. This is especially damning; Arturo was also absent, meaning neither of them were present during this crucial moment.
February 24th 1989, the trial court ordered Daniel Hernandez to inform the court of his medical condition. He failed to do so.
Neither counsel appeared in court on February 21st and February 27th, 1989; instead, law clerk Richard Salinas appeared on Richard’s behalf.
On February 27th, 1989, the court continued trial to March 6th, 1989.
March 1st, 1989, a hearing was held concerning trial counsel Daniel Hernandez’s health. The court determined that there was no legal cause to delay the trial.
March 6th, 1989: Ray Clark was appointed as co-counsel. It’s far too late for him to be of much use.
July 13th 1989, prosecutions closing argument, neither Daniel nor Arturo Hernandez were present. Arturo didn’t turn up, and Daniel didn’t bother to return from lunch, causing the jury to be excused for the rest of the day. “As you can see..Hernandez isn’t with us this afternoon. Frankly, we don’t know where he is”. Frankly, that’s just not good enough.
July 14th, 1989, the court ordered Daniel Hernandez to be present at all hearings and Arturo Hernandez to present himself in court on July 17th.
July 17th 1989, Arturo Hernandez failed to attend court for the closing argument of the guilt phase.
August 18th 1989, Arturo Hernandez was found in contempt of court and fined. He had told the court he was in Mexico attending his brother’s funeral; he was in Europe on honeymoon. Trial court found him to have abandoned Ramirez.
September 14th 1989, Arturo Hernandez was again found in contempt for not paying his fine. The court issues another arrest warrant, and bail is set for $5000, but withdraws the accusation of abandonment.
September 15th 1989, Arturo Hernandez contacts the court.
September 18th, 1989, Arturo Hernandez paid a cheque for $100. The court sentences him to 24 days in jail or pay a $2400 fine. He’s jailed for one day for late payment of a $100 contempt of court fine.
September 19th 1989, Arturo Hernandez pays the $2400 fine.
September 20th 1989, Richard is found guilty.

A notification of court proceedings against Arturo Hernandez with a list of his fines/sentence for being in contempt. This was one of documents we found during our research at the LA archives in October.

“Counsel’s lack of qualifications, failures to appear, and incompetence were obvious to the trial judge throughout the proceedings. Furthermore, it is clear that counsel’s deficits endangered the fairness of the proceedings, and diminished the integrity of the legal profession. The trial court erred in allowing Petitioner to stand trial on capital charges with such ineffective representation.”
Habeas Corpus, page 245

In-Court Display Disaster

On occasion, Daniel Hernandez made a valiant attempt to defend Ramirez; to say otherwise would be unfair; although lacking technique and the critical skills so desperately needed, his attempts often looked faintly ridiculous.

During the cross-examination of the prosecution’s fingerprint expert in the Vincow incident, Daniel spent a couple of hours trying to get the examiner to demonstrate exactly where the alleged fingerprints were on the window screen. He even brought his own in-court display, a piece of cardboard that finally fell on top of him.
The newspaper reporters had this to say:

*Daniel gets smacked by his display, Monrovia News Post, 20th April, 1986.*

An LAPD fingerprint expert, Darnel Carter, said that the prints found on the screen at the Glassell Park apartment matched those of a suspect, but the name had not been released. However, the police said the prints belonged to Ramirez, so we hear no more about this.

According to news reports, Hernandez TWICE asked to examine the fingerprint evidence, but Judge Nelson denied his request. Daniel Hernandez was correct when he told reporters that fingerprint evidence is not infallible. Why Nelson refused his request is a question that has never been answered, and refusing the defence a better look at fingerprints seems a common trait; the U.S. Government later refused Ron Smith (fingerprint expert for the defence, post-conviction) a look at them as well.

Those fingerprints were never independently verified. In this instance, we should cut Daniel some slack. Just a little.

Dodgy Diagrams

As previously discussed in an earlier post, the defence didn’t retain an expert witness to challenge the prosecution’s misleading shoeprint evidence. Daniel rallied to the task with another in-court display, which purportedly showed all the incidents where the Avia shoeprints were discovered. He managed to get it wrong and included the Kneiding incident.

No shoeprints were found at the Kneiding crime scene, which the defence should have known, and getting it so badly wrong is appalling. In his closing argument, Halpin used this huge mistake to discredit Hernandez, making him appear a fool to the jury. After the trial some of the jurors called Daniel and Arturo “idiots”.

Prosecutor Halpin made no pretence of hiding his disdain for Daniel and Arturo Hernadez, their in-court bickering appearing in news articles more than once.

Are You Beginning to See a Pattern?

If one was being kind, one could believe that the pressure of the case, the lack of funding and Daniel’s health could invoke a feeling of sympathy for the beleaguered defence team. However, I am not inclined to feel anything other than disbelief when viewing the entirety of their misdemeanours, failures and lack of consideration for their client.

Their monetary concern overrode all, and one can only wonder if their agreeing to defend Ramirez was based on the thoughts of a fat, lucrative book or movie deal landing in their laps, which, possibly, Manny Barraza, another lawyer involved with the Ramirez family, assured them would happen. Barraza himself did very well in his association with the trial. (He was later imprisoned on corruption charges unconnected to the Ramirez case).

Sympathy is drowned out in a rush after the realisation that this pattern of behaviour was nothing new. It was their modus operandi.

The People V Headley

In 1985, the appeal court in San Francisco found attorney Daniel Hernandez “professionally deficient” in his representation of another man who was convicted of murder. The appeal panel, who declared Daniel ineffectual as a lawyer, reprimanded him for inadequate research and case preparation. However, they declared that it didn’t do enough damage to the defence to warrant a new trial.

The San Jose defendant, Mark Anthony Headley, was sentenced to 26 years and, after conviction, sought new lawyers stating he had been denied effective assistance of counsel during his trial.
Santa Clara Superior Court Judge, Lawrence Terry, found Hernandez ill-prepared for counsel. In circumstances similar to the Night Stalker trial, he failed to subpoena witnesses and inspect the evidence, nor did he properly research the law.

Judge Soper, who at the time the Hernadezes took on Richard’s case, was fully aware of the proceedings in Clara County but still allowed the change of attorneys to go ahead as long as they informed Richard of any complaints against them. They could tell Richard whatever they wanted; he was struggling with his own mental problems and didn’t appear to understand what was in his best interests; his family had found these lawyers for him.

“Moreover, the court was aware that both Daniel Hernandez and Arturo Hernandez had been held in contempt of court in Santa Clara County, and a contempt matter involving Daniel Hernandez was currently pending in Santa Clara County. (XVII CT 4986.) The trial court ordered Daniel Hernandez and Arturo Hernandez to disclose to Petitioner all instances of complaints by former clients, any State Bar investigation, citations for contempt of court, and prior allegations of ineffective representation.19 The court took the matter of substitution of retained counsel under submission. (Id. at 4988-89.) The court continued Petitioner’s arraignment to October 24th, 1985”.
(Id. at 4980-90; XIX CT 5469.) Habeas Corpus, page 33.

Allen Adashek, the public defender who so briefly represented Ramirez, arranged for an independent attorney, Victor Chavez, to advise him on the best course of action in choosing his defence; Richard refused to meet with him and fired Adashek due to pressure from his family, and his own paranoia. In Richard’s mind, the public defenders, attached to and appointed by the court, must be working for “the other side”. Manny Barraza was busy fuelling this paranoia by telling the newspapers that Adashek was searching for a book deal, which is clearly not true. Adashek was fully funded by the State.

The intense paranoia experienced by Ramirez concerning court officials reared its head again when he insisted that juror Fernando Sandejas be dismissed from the jury after he discovered that Sandejas and Adashek had attended the same school. The fact that Adashek was a public defender and was working for his best interests was wholly lost on Ramirez.

The People V Ortiz

“Daniel Hernandez disclosed to the court that he was counsel of record in the trial court in People v. Ortiz. In People v. Ortiz, 51 Cal.3d 975, 800 P.2d 547, 275 Cal.Rptr. 191 (1990), which involved the same attorneys, the California Supreme Court held that the trial court should have discharged Daniel Hernandez and Arturo Hernandez on the defendant’s motion based on their incompetence in that pending murder case. Their acts of ineffectiveness in Ortiz occurred at the same time they represented Petitioner”.
Habeas corpus, page 33.

Is it Groundhog Day?

Carlos Shawn Ortiz has the bad luck to be represented by Daniel and Arturo in his murder trial; he, too, had substituted an assigned public defender in favour of them.

His appeal, People v. Ortiz, 51 Cal.3d 975, 275 Cal. Rptr. 191, 800 P.2d 547 (Cal. 1990) cites the same misdemeanours experienced by Headley and Ramirez.

On 10th October 1985, Daniel Hernandez was held in contempt for failing to appear in court. That’s unsurprising as he had just been substituted onto the Night Stalker case and was in L.A. He was fined $100 and eventually paid $2500 for being found in contempt of court. Could these numerous fines have contributed to their financial woes?

In January 1986, Carlos Ortiz filed a Marsden motion to get Daniel and Arturo Hernandez dismissed from his case for failing to defend him adequately. He stated they did not appear in court, return his calls, or explore potentially exculpatory evidence concerning blood samples.
Daniel and Arturo blamed the defendant, saying he had lost confidence in them. Who can blame him? Similarly, they blamed the family for not paying them, which leaves the question of whether an indigent client “gets what he pays for” – or not.

Ortiz felt that their time was taken up with the Night Stalker trial, running concurrently with his, and that was where their focus was. I doubt Ramirez would agree, for although Daniel and Arturo did blame the L.A trial for their constant delays and waiving of time, they simultaneously were not appearing for Ramirez.

The Ortiz case went to two trials, the first being declared a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The Hernandezes represented him at both, and he was eventually convicted. His appeal was denied because the appellate court opined that he had not demonstrated effective denial of counsel.
If one is poor, the judicial system is a lottery, one with zero chance of winning.

San Francisco

Oh no, they didn’t, did they? In what seems almost a pantomime, and yet is another repetition of the Los Angeles farce of October 1985, Daniel and Arturo arrived at the San Francisco court intending to represent Ramirez in the pending Pan trial.

*San Francisco Examiner, 5th December 1989.*

On this occasion, Richard stuck with his new attorneys, Michael Burt, Daro Inouye, Dorothy Bischoff and, (until he dismissed him), Randall Martin. Eventually, the Pan trial was stayed indefinitely due to his inability to assist his defence rationally.
You can read about the San Francisco case HERE.

Afterwards

Daniel Hernandez died in 2003.
Arturo is still a practising lawyer. Here is a review of his performance from last year, some things never change.

The articles concerning the attorneys are some of the least read that we write, but they are crucially important to understanding the trial of Richard Ramirez.

I will leave the last word to one of the jury members, in this instance, the dismissed Fernando Sandejas:

“The the prosecutor was well prepared and presented an orderly case, the attorneys Richard Ramirez hired to defend him were both idiots. I questioned why Ramirez picked them to represent him. They had never tried a capital case before. The lead defense attorney looked lost. His demeanour and poor presentation made it obvious that he had no idea what he was doing”
Document 20-8.

*Ramirez with Richard Salinas, dated 20th September 1989, Photo credit: Michael Haering from the Herald Examiner Collection.*

Additional sources: Sixth Amendment Center – Home (6ac.org) and People v. Ortiz, 51 Cal.3d 975 | Casetext Search + Citator

~ Jay ~

January 4, 2024

ATROCIOUS ATTORNEYS

attorneys, compromised, court case, crime, history, murder, news, Night Stalker, Richard Ramírez, true crime, unfair trial

43 responses to “And Justice for All”

YesIAmEvil

January 7, 2024 at 11:22 pm

I wonder what exactly it was that made Richard change his mind regarding the Hernandezes. I mean, he still didn’t really trust his attorneys (public defenders). The Hernandezes earned him 19 death penalties, ok, but that was just what he had expected anyway. And with 19 death penalties on his shoulders, why did the outcome of his SF trial apparently matter to him? He always stated that he didn’t care. But apparently he did care enough to change his lawyers.

LikeLike

Reply
1. ~ Jay ~
  
  January 7, 2024 at 11:50 pm
  
  He obviously cared, whatever he may have said, (including in those interviews) and I assume he listened to advice, possibly from his appellate lawyer (whom he personally sought out) or maybe he realised himself that what the Hernandezes did for him during those four years was well below the standard expected in a capital case. Would you want people who messed up your case so badly representing you again? I wouldn’t. It’s true he didn’t trust either Randall Martin or Daro Inouye, letting his paranoia interfere with their better judgement and actions.
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
  
  Reply
Vivi

July 22, 2024 at 3:23 am

Would you guys happen to know on what grounds Halpin moved to remove Judge Dion Morrow from the case? Judge Morrow seemed to be genuinely trying to ensure Richard a fair trial and treated him with a decent amount of respect instead of dehumanizing him like most people in this trial.

LikeLike

Reply
1. ~ Jay ~
  
  July 22, 2024 at 6:55 am
  
  I think he said it was because of his caseload. Halpin said Morrow was too busy and he didn’t want any delays.
  I think it probably had more to do with him trying to do his job correctly. He was, after all, the judge that advised Richard that his lawyers were useless and that his rights were not being protected.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply
2. VenningB
  
  July 22, 2024 at 10:34 am
  
  It was because Halpin decided Morrow’s calendar was too full and then Morrow agreed. It’s a shame. He’d have been better. Here’s an article.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply
  1. Vivi
    
    July 22, 2024 at 3:06 pm
    
    I agree Richard could’ve possibly received a more fair trial. Judge Tynan seems to have contributed at least a little bit to the unfairness of this trial.
    
    LikeLike
  2. VenningB
    
    July 22, 2024 at 3:18 pm
    
    Definitely. He seemed very obstructive. And the whole thing should have been stopped because of the incompetency of his lawyers and Tynan absolutely had the power to do it. It’s in Supreme Court law.
    I know the court didn’t want to waste time by starting the process again, because the defence already caused years of delays – but that could have been solved by the court much earlier too. And Morrow could have been the one to do it, had he not been removed.
    
    LikeLiked by 3 people
sarah1997

August 10, 2024 at 11:25 pm

Man has horrible childhood, goes homeless brain damaged drug addiction meets up with very bad criminals they basically use the poor guy taking advantage of him knowing he sucks so badly at crimes, Satan lover AC/DC fan, eager to snitch on him to the cops may of them do but some where beaten by cops assumed guilty 2 weeks before arrest! Hyped eveything up scaring the public too much. I’m sure someone knew where Richard was going told the cops and wrong place and the wrong time boom! Unfair trial poor man can’t afford lawyers gets shitty ones no one properly or at all defending him get confused and fired his lawyers, having hopes he will be released and saved from cup cake Cindy. Faulty evidence etc… coached victims, RR felt possibly blackmailed, hiding his medical records to “show” the monster inside him which never really at all excited that’s just a media thing. Convicted based on bad ballistics and avias they had no hard evidence at all so I’m sure they made up the way they linked him all to the crimes! They used his weakness which was his mental health against him and the way he was talking about his love for crimes and tbh the things he’s said about crimes even a person who doesn’t have an interest in it would know it’s common sense in a away. No help at all in prison while he was suffering possibly poisoned him. No treatment! Messed up court eveything makes me mad about this case! Am I missing something?

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
sarah1997

August 10, 2024 at 11:31 pm

it’s seems as tho no matter how much you think about different outcomes it takes you to a totally different area soemthing more darker!

LikeLike

Reply
1. ~ Jay ~
  
  August 10, 2024 at 11:32 pm
  
  This has taken us down some very dark paths, but once we started there was no going back.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply
  1. sarah1997
    
    August 10, 2024 at 11:34 pm
    
    That’s the thing! If feel like they want us to feel this way constantly questioning things how many other crimes has such things happened like this I can’t name even one! All those other crimes simple done no questions asked you got your answers! But this one I’ve never seen anything like this before. What are they even hiding?
    
    LikeLike
  2. ~ Jay ~
    
    August 10, 2024 at 11:51 pm
    
    To be honest, I think the last thing they want is for anyone to question this case. We see the a lead detective week after week repeating the same old tired lines, he’s on podcasts, he’s at CrimeCon, he does special appearances and “Wine and Crime” nights (how sick is that last one?)
    “Maxine Zazzara’s eyes were removed. Nice Merlot, by the way”. It is all to keep the narrative circulating. They are hiding a lot of things.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  3. sarah1997
    
    August 10, 2024 at 11:55 pm
    
    He’s a sick man Gil! Anything to show himself as a hero. Seriously wine and crime?! More like wine and sleep cuz hearing him talk makes me sleepy. I want to know what they are hiding so badly it’s bugging me!
    
    LikeLike
sarah1997

August 10, 2024 at 11:53 pm

few years ago around 2018 I was sleeping over my cousins place I went to put his pet hamster away in the kitchen cuz I couldn’t sleep with the noise. This was airing 3-4 am in the garage I heard a loud bang! My aunt always leaves the garage door unlocked idk why ughhh I Almost opened the door but then instead just went to bed! I’m the morning I heard my aunt screaming and talking with the cops! Someone homeless broke into my aunts house and stole her car and that’s the bang I heard in the night! The cops told us that these people are actually petty criminals and harmless! They just take cars for joyrides and stuff they won’t hurt you! But still it was scary. They had a chance to enter the house but they didn’t and the door was unlocked too! I feel like Richard was one of these kinds of criminals. Harmless thief!

LikeLike

Reply
sarah1997

August 14, 2024 at 6:52 am

what about Richard makes him so special for the cops? Honestly see him a typical homeless man dealing with normal things just at a super high level! There has to be something much more to Richard than we think there to be another reason why people wanted to take advantage of Richard and snitch on him! I don’t think it’s only for Richard to take the fall I thinks it’s much more than that I don’t believe at all it’s as simple as we think! Richard would have to have them gain something without him knowing cuz he’s super naive and then once they’ve had enough of him or he just wasn’t as we know a very skilled criminal and an inexperienced one at that as well they felt maybe at some point he’s slip up as always so they did what they did and were looking for more easy people to take advantage of! But how many people did they do this to or was it only Richard they did this to? What about Richard was it what did they make Richard believe cuz it’s much more deeper than what we think soemthing dark and darker than we think. For them to take advantage of him just like that there’s soemthing i believe much deeper and I feel like his brother Julian knows soemthing why else what he introduce him to Jesse I might be wrong about this part but there’s too much going on in this case and a lot to consider. Richard was very very weak and a very weak person can’t go from that one day then tough the next.

LikeLike

Reply
Tracy Owens

September 15, 2024 at 5:47 am

Wow! I have no idea how I came across this blog, but this is amazing and fascinating work. I am just gobsmacked by the sheer incompetence of everyone involved in this man’s arrest and trial. I never did buy that media garbage about him being this master criminal/satanist necromancer etc.
The irony is just cataclysmic in that the person most victimized by this charade of a trial was Mr. Ramirez.
Great research and writing. Thank you for creating this blog.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
1. ~ Jay ~
  
  September 15, 2024 at 9:22 am
  
  Hi, thank you so much for your comment, we really appreciate it.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
~ Jay ~

September 30, 2024 at 8:56 pm

An interesting article about “celebrity” prosecutor, Kelly Siegler and her unethical practise.

I wasn’t quite sure where to drop this, I wanted to write a short article but ran out of time. It’s a long read, but well worth it. It’s quite shocking the lengths some people will go to to get a conviction, especially if they have a TV show.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
Vivi

February 2, 2025 at 5:15 am

Something I often think about is the fact that the prosecution must have known they didn’t have substantial evidence—let alone a solid case—against Richard for the Night Stalker crimes. This might not have been obvious before his arrest, but afterward, once they started working on building their case, they had to have realized that law enforcement had done an abysmal job collecting, preserving, and presenting evidence. From the way testimonies were gathered to how composite sketches were drawn, the entire investigation was sloppy at best and outright negligent at worst.

As has been pointed out countless times, the strength of the case didn’t come from solid, irrefutable proof. Instead, it came from weaving together a complex web—connecting weak evidence and questionable testimony with slightly stronger pieces to form a convoluted ball of deception. A reasonable person would naturally ask: Why did they continue prosecuting the case if the evidence and testimonies were so insufficient?

The answer lies in the unspoken code of law enforcement and the justice system. Once a person is charged and arrested, the prosecution faces immense institutional and external pressure—especially from the public—to push forward, no matter how weak their case might be. Dropping the charges or admitting they had the wrong person would mean risking public trust and undermining the authority of both law enforcement and the justice system.

This is why, time and time again, prosecutors push forward with cases they aren’t fully confident in. Their priority isn’t necessarily seeking true justice—it’s about maintaining the illusion of authority and control over the public. In many cases, protecting their reputation and power takes precedence over ensuring that justice is actually served.

LikeLiked by 2 people

Reply
1. ~ Jay ~
  
  February 2, 2025 at 2:45 pm
  
  Exactly. Halpin always had the upper hand, he’d been assigned the case about a month before Richard was even a suspect, and once they’d got him, the outcome was assured. The public would expect no less, after all, Richard had been declared guilty by law enforcement and the media before he was arraigned, and that was hammered directly into people’s homes via their TVs. The mayor (much respected) seeking reelection, was also complicit.
  Luckily for the prosecution, they managed to shift the “burden of proof” as his guilt was automatically assumed, they basically didn’t ever prove it. The failing was with the defence, who didn’t have the experience, funds, ethics or vigour to “prove innocence”. Which, by law, was not the way it’s meant to work.
  Such a shoddy job, a hatchet job, no more, no less.
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
  
  Reply
Vivi

February 2, 2025 at 3:32 pm

I’m not sure if you all are familiar with this case, but there was a highly publicized lawsuit in the U.S. called Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1994). It was considered an “atrocity case” because it was an extreme, rare event that received massive media attention. The way the media framed it, a 79-year-old woman spilled McDonald’s coffee on herself while sitting in her car and was awarded a staggering $2.9 million in damages. This led to public outrage, with many calling her a “sue-happy cheapskate” who purposely caused the spill just to make a quick buck. Liebeck was ridiculed relentlessly by both the media and the general public, facing widespread abuse. While McDonald’s may have lost in court, they won in the court of public opinion.

The media’s version of the story was far from the truth. In reality, Liebeck suffered third-degree burns on her pelvic region, which required extensive skin grafts and months of hospitalization. She attempted to settle the matter privately for six months after the incident, simply asking McDonald’s to help cover her massive medical bills. She wasn’t asking for millions, just fair compensation for her suffering. McDonald’s, however, flat-out refused every settlement offer and instead tried to silence her with a pathetic $1,000 offer—an amount insultingly low given the extent of her injuries.

When the case went to trial, the jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 for medical expenses and pain and suffering—but this amount was reduced by 20% to $160,000 because they found her partially responsible for the spill. The jury also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages to punish McDonald’s for its gross negligence and to deter them from serving coffee at scalding-hot temperatures in the future. This amount was based on two days’ worth of McDonald’s coffee sales. However, through various legal adjustments, Liebeck ultimately received only around $500,000—possibly even less. This so-called “win” came at a devastating personal cost—she was left physically scarred, financially burdened, and emotionally traumatized by the sheer hatred she endured from the public.

One of the most insidious aspects of this case was how the media framed it as an isolated incident—when in reality, McDonald’s had been sued nearly 700 times before for serving dangerously hot coffee, most of these were settled outside of court for undisclosed amounts. But instead of acknowledging their wrongdoing, McDonald’s used its vast resources and media connections to twist the narrative—turning Liebeck into a national joke while they came out looking like the victim. Eventually, they did quietly lower the temperature of their coffee, but the damage to Liebeck’s reputation had already been done.

I bring up this story because it’s eerily similar to how the media manipulated public perception in Richard’s case. Just like McDonald’s, law enforcement, prosecutors, and politicians had everything to gain by controlling the narrative. McDonald’s was a powerful, influential corporation that pulled strings behind the scenes to spread misinformation and paint itself in a favorable light. The justice system operates in the same way—and in Richard’s case, the media had both the public and the trial itself in a chokehold.

Richard was constantly vilified—not just for the crimes he was accused of, but simply for existing. From the moment he was arrested, law enforcement and politicians were fully invested in securing his conviction, even though the evidence was weak. And just like McDonald’s used the media to protect its profits, law enforcement used it to protect their own reputations and authority. It’s not a leap of logic to suggest that they influenced the way the media covered Richard’s case, ensuring that the public saw him as nothing more than a monster—long before the trial even began. They still have this influence today (I’m looking at you, Carrillo), continuing to spread half-truths and outright falsehoods to uphold their version of events.

Richard’s trial was never truly about justice. It was a trial by media and public opinion, and the constant barrage of negative coverage made it impossible for him to ever receive a fair trial. Liebeck may have received financial compensation, but it came at the cost of being dragged through the mud by the media. Similarly, Richard was destroyed in the public eye, making any real judicial fairness impossible.

This is why it is crucial to look beyond what the media tells us. We must always ask, “who benefits from this narrative?”, “who has the power to shape public perception?”, and “what biases or hidden agendas might be influencing what we are being told?” The media is not a neutral entity. It serves interests, corporations, and institutions that have a vested stake in controlling public perception. If we don’t scrutinize and challenge what we are being fed, we risk becoming blind followers of a false narrative—one that serves power, not truth.

(Sorry that was a long one lol. Some details may vary depending on where you read about the case. But these are just the basic facts of the case.)

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
1. ~ Jay ~
  
  February 2, 2025 at 3:47 pm
  
  Weirdly, I came across a reference to this, quite by accident, a few days ago. The comment was dragging the woman, and I had no idea of the reality of her situation.
  Trial by public opinion, poor woman.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply
  1. Vivi
    
    February 2, 2025 at 4:14 pm
    
    While researching the case, I came across images of Stella Liebeck’s wounds, and let me just say—if I were in her position, I would have sued McDonald’s for every penny they had. This wasn’t some minor injury, like a small cut or a superficial burn. She suffered third-degree burns, which destroy all layers of the skin, along with the underlying fat and tissue. Given that the burn occurred in such a delicate and sensitive area—her pelvic region—and that she was an elderly woman, the severity of her injuries should have been taken even more seriously. The damage was so extensive that doctors had to perform skin grafts, taking tissue from other parts of her body to close her wounds and aid in her recovery.
    
    And to make matters worse, the spill wasn’t even her fault. One of her relatives was driving the car at the time, and they hit a bump in the road, causing the coffee to spill. Yet, instead of acknowledging their own negligence, McDonald’s tried to deflect responsibility. Extensive tests later confirmed that if someone had consumed the coffee immediately after purchase, they would have suffered significant esophageal damage within just three seconds. That’s how dangerously hot McDonald’s coffee was—hot enough to cause severe, life-altering injuries in an instant.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  2. ~ Jay ~
    
    February 2, 2025 at 4:20 pm
    
    That’s horrendous! The poor woman, can you imagine the pain she went through.
    I will definitely look that up properly now.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  3. Vivi
    
    February 2, 2025 at 4:28 pm
    
    I know I’m detracting from the conversation about Richard for a moment, but this part of the case really frustrates me. McDonald’s claimed that the reason their coffee was served at such dangerously high temperatures was to ensure it stayed warm for a longer period. But if that were truly their concern, why didn’t they invest in better packaging—like thermally insulated cups or even reusable metal bottles—that could retain heat without putting customers at risk? Instead, they chose to keep serving scalding-hot coffee in flimsy styrofoam cups, prioritizing cost-cutting over consumer safety.
    
    And then there’s the way the media framed the entire lawsuit. The headline “Woman Spills Coffee, Wins $2.9 Million” was intentionally designed to provoke outrage. It was meant to make people roll their eyes, scoff, and believe that this was just another example of a frivolous lawsuit clogging up the courts. But it was purposefully misleading—completely ignoring the third-degree burns, the skin grafts, the excruciating pain, and the months of recovery Liebeck endured. The truth was buried under a sensationalized headline because it was more profitable to make her look like the villain rather than hold McDonald’s accountable.
    
    This case is a perfect example of how easily the media can manipulate public perception. We allow the media to shape our beliefs, dictate our outrage, and tell us who to sympathize with and who to despise. And most of the time, we don’t even stop to question it. We assume that what we’re being told is the full truth, when in reality, it’s just a carefully curated version of events designed to serve someone else’s interests.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  4. ~ Jay ~
    
    February 2, 2025 at 4:35 pm
    
    It’s not detracting, it’s highlighted a very important point and it’s a worthy comparison.
    The lady who was injured, so I read the other day, is still held personally responsible for today’s “sue culture”. By reading the comments alone, you could easily see that the narrative had influenced everyone’s opinion on that accident.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  5. Vivi
    
    February 2, 2025 at 4:45 pm
    
    The United States has long been characterized as a “sue-happy” nation, with critics arguing that people are too quick to file lawsuits for financial or emotional gain. This perception was especially prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s, fueled by a surge in high-profile civil cases and the rise of so-called “ambulance chasers”—lawyers who aggressively pursued liability lawsuits like sharks drawn to blood. While there were certainly frivolous lawsuits during this period, the media often misrepresented or oversimplified many cases, leaving out critical details that would have changed public opinion. Liebeck v. McDonald’s is one of the most infamous examples of this phenomenon, where the actual facts were buried under a wave of misleading headlines and public outrage.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  6. ~ Jay ~
    
    February 2, 2025 at 4:50 pm
    
    When we were in Nevada (Venning and I stayed with friends there when we left LA) we noticed the heavy advertising of lawyers and law firms. Huge billboards all fishing for those exact type of cases. Quick, “sue ’em to hell” cases.
    
    LikeLiked by 2 people
  7. kaycee0823
    
    February 3, 2025 at 7:41 am
    
    Personal injury law firms have some strange ways of advertising. It’s definitely a money grabbing industry.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  8. kaycee0823
    
    February 3, 2025 at 7:37 am
    
    Wow. I certainly remember the McDonald’s coffee scandal but I don’t remember anything about the victim except that she was ridiculed publicly.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
Vivi

February 2, 2025 at 4:40 pm

“AC/DC Made Me Kill 16,” “Face of Evil,” “It’s Me!” “Ramirez Says He’s Innocent—Hail Satan!”—these are just a few of the sensationalized headlines that ran during Richard’s case. Each one was carefully crafted to manipulate public perception before he ever set foot in a courtroom.

The idea that something as minuscule as a band’s song could compel someone to murder 16 people is absurd. Yet, the media pushed this narrative, reinforcing the moral panic of the time and making it easier for the public to accept a simplified, black-and-white version of events. Labeling Richard as “evil” from the start led people to say things like, “I saw evil in his eyes,” as if that alone proved guilt.

One particularly damning headline framed Richard’s insistence on his innocence alongside the phrase “Hail Satan,” deliberately fueling the Satanic Panic that consumed the 1980s. This wasn’t just irresponsible journalism—it was a calculated effort to dehumanize him and ensure that any claim of wrongful conviction would be dismissed outright. The media wasn’t just biased against Richard; they actively worked to program the public to be against him at every stage of his trial.

People who refuse to engage in rational and intelligent conversations about this case will say, “Who cares? He was found guilty anyway.” But that argument completely misses the point. Under the Constitution, every person—no matter their alleged crimes—is entitled to due process, which includes the right to a fair trial. Richard was never given that right, and the media was a major force in ensuring that he wouldn’t.

LikeLiked by 2 people

Reply
1. ~ Jay ~
  
  February 2, 2025 at 4:42 pm
  
  And there, in a nutshell, you’ve outline a big part of why we did this blog/book. The utter disregard for due process.
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
  
  Reply
2. ~ Jay ~
  
  February 2, 2025 at 5:59 pm
  
  As for “AC/DC made me kill..” what a load of shit. What a ridiculous headline.
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
  
  Reply
  1. kaycee0823
    
    February 3, 2025 at 7:43 am
    
    I loved so many of their songs. Still do. That’s absurd.
    
    LikeLiked by 2 people
  2. Vivi
    
    February 3, 2025 at 4:09 pm
    
    I think a lot of people overlook the influence of the Satanic Panic when discussing Richard’s case. The moral hysteria of the 1980s seeped into nearly every aspect of American life, fueled by sensationalist media and pop culture. It created an atmosphere where anything even remotely associated with Satanism was viewed as inherently evil, often without critical examination.
    
    From what I’ve gathered, Richard didn’t see Satan as a figure of pure malice but rather as a protector of outcasts—someone who stood by those society had rejected. Seeing himself as a black sheep, he gravitated toward this idea, not necessarily as a justification for his actions, but as a way to make sense of his place in the world. Unlike some who use Satanism as an excuse for violence, Richard’s beliefs seemed more rooted in personal identification than a deliberate ideological motivation for harm.
    
    Before learning about this case, I had no idea that bands like AC/DC were ever linked to Satanism—it all seems like misplaced paranoia to me. But then again, I’m not particularly religious, so I’ve never viewed things through that lens.
    
    LikeLike
  3. ~ Jay ~
    
    February 3, 2025 at 5:25 pm
    
    Only in America. Lol
    In the UK AC/DC weren’t treated like that. I saw them live twice in the mid to late 80s, they were fantastic.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  4. Vivi
    
    February 3, 2025 at 5:50 pm
    
    I’m not sure if it’s because the U.S. is generally more conservative than the U.K., but there’s definitely a tendency here to intertwine religion with culture and politics in a way that sometimes feels excessive. This influence has shaped public perceptions of morality, often leading to overblown reactions to things that, in hindsight, seem harmless.
    
    Take AC/DC, for example—if you compare their music to what’s popular today, the difference is almost laughable. Modern music is often far more explicit and, in my opinion, downright trashy. Yet, back then, AC/DC was vilified, accused of promoting Satanism and corrupting youth. Even after reading their lyrics, I still don’t understand why they received so much backlash. It’s fascinating (and kind of ridiculous) how moral panics can make something seem far more dangerous than it actually is.
    
    LikeLike
  5. ~ Jay ~
    
    February 3, 2025 at 6:48 pm
    
    I wrote a little post on that a long time ago, just a brief overview of the “Satanic Panic” and how Richard and his trial was used as an example. The ridiculous cops were even studying AC/DC lyrics. LOL
    
    LikeLiked by 2 people
  6. Vivi
    
    February 4, 2025 at 12:35 am
    
    That’s one of my favorite posts on here. When you view Richard’s trial in the context of the Satanic Panic, everything starts to make a lot more sense—the hysteria, the moral outrage, and the way the media sensationalized every aspect of the case. The fear of satanic influence completely overshadowed rational analysis, despite the fact that similar crimes had been occurring long before the Night Stalker attacks. The idea of cops seriously studying AC/DC lyrics, as if they would uncover some hidden clues, is honestly hilarious. It’s like they thought they were decoding some grand conspiracy when, in reality, they were just grasping at straws. It makes me wonder—were all cops in the ’80s this incompetent, or were the LASD and LAPD just particularly bad? Because from what I’ve seen, their investigative techniques were absolutely atrocious.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  7. ~ Jay ~
    
    February 4, 2025 at 1:06 pm
    
    I’d say LASD/LAPD were especially bad and corrupt.
    Have you read “Chaos” by Tom O’Neill? About the Manson investigation? Not much changed between 69 and 85. 🙄
    
    LikeLiked by 2 people
  8. kaycee0823
    
    February 5, 2025 at 2:57 am
    
    Helter skelter was still fresh in peoples minds.
    
    LikeLike
  9. kaycee0823
    
    February 5, 2025 at 2:55 am
    
    LAPD/LASD has a long history of being corrupt. And the whole satanic panic was indeed a crazy mess. There was stuff all over the news about how the rock lyrics were turning kids into murderers and drug addicts. There were a lot of so-called religious leaders at the time who thought the lyrics were some kind of satanic messages. It’s kind of weird that LA got so wrapped up in the satanic panic, considering they have historically been a very liberal city. Some of the beliefs about the music were definitely generationally influenced. That could be why some of the PD/SD were quick to believe it.
    
    LikeLiked by 2 people
3. kaycee0823
  
  February 3, 2025 at 7:40 am
  
  The media took some much of what he said and twisted it to serve the purpose they wanted,which was to make him look like a crazed satanic rapist and murderer.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply