Arrest
On the 30th of August 1985, the final police sketch of the man suspected of being the “Night Stalker” was created with the help of Carol Kyle, who had been brutally raped and robbed at gunpoint on the 30th of May. It was the second composite Kyle had assisted with, the first being produced in June. That same day, the police had finally put a face to the nebulous entity that had terrorised the city and broader county of Los Angeles, and the first image of Richard Ramirez was released to the media and the world.
The circumstances surrounding Richard’s capture and subsequent arrest are worthy of a dedicated article, but a brief explanation must suffice for now.
Ramirez was captured the morning after his image was released, in Boyle Heights, East LA, by a crowd of angry citizens immortalised as The Hubbard Street Heroes, during a failed car-jacking as he tried to make a run for it. Beaten to the ground and bleeding from a head injury caused by a metal pole wielded by Manuel Delatorre, Richard was held until police and paramedics arrived, whereby Deputy Sheriff Andres Ramirez (no relation) of the LAPD, arrested him for attempted grand theft auto and assault. The enraged residents of Boyle Heights, engaged in protecting their community from a car thief, had not immediately realised that they were chasing down America’s most wanted.
Deputy Sheriff Andres Ramirez received a call at 9:00 a.m. on August 31, 1985, to respond to an incident on East Hubbard Street. When he arrived, Deputy Ramirez saw a group of seven to eight men on the street surrounding a man, later identified as Petitioner, sitting on the ground with a bloody head. Manuel Delatorre told Deputy Ramirez that Petitioner had attempted to take his wife’s car and had assaulted his wife. (170 RT 19811-14.)
Deputy Ramirez placed Petitioner under arrest for attempted grand theft and assault. Petitioner said his name was Ricardo Ramirez. He was not armed; neither contraband nor a weapon was found. He was cooperative. (Id. at 19819-21.) Petitioner was handcuffed and treated by paramedics. Petitioner was turned over to Los Angeles Police Officers Strandgren and Vidal who arrived shortly thereafter. (Id. at 19814-16, 19819-21.)Federal Petition of Habeas Corpus, page 119
The image below shows the Hubbard Street Heroes receiving plaques given to them on the 4th of September 1985. At this early stage, Ramirez had not been arraigned, formally charged or identified in a lineup, demonstrating that such formalities were unimportant in this case. Cementing this point, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley would declare that they didn’t need a trial, the concept of the 6th Amendment seemingly lost on him.
After a ceremony Friday honoring the men who captured Ramirez, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley commented: “We don’t need to wait for an arbitrary legal process to run its course before handing out the rewards. . . . We’re satisfied that based on the evidence, we have the right man.”
Ramirez’s New Lawyer Seeks Change of Venue – LA Times, 10th September 1985
Mayor Tom Bradley contributed to the impossibility of Ramirez receiving a fair trial by enforcing the media view that he was guilty, a fact noted by Public Defender Allen Adashek, a lawyer briefly assigned to Richard.
“I think it’s bothersome when public officials make statements that appear to presume the guilt of a person who has only been arrested and charged with a crime and hasn’t even entered a plea yet,” he said.
Ramirez’s New Lawyer Seeks Change of Venue – LA Times, 10th September 1985
Tom Bradley was re-elected in April 1985, only four months before. He was a popular choice; this would be his fourth term. It is safe to say he probably knew a thing or two about “crowd-pleasing”, like most politicians.
“It’s Me, Man!”
His head wounds treated and covered in bandages, Ramirez was handed over to Officers James Kaiser and Danny Rodriguez, who drove him to Hollenbeck police station. During this ten-minute journey, Richard allegedly blurted out, “It’s me, man”, which has been (mistakenly) assumed by some that his statement was a confession. However, Ramirez likely noticed his mugshot attached to the police car’s visor; the photo had been distributed that morning at roll call.
Outside Hollenbeck station, angry crowds were gathering. With helicopters circling above and many cameras, this drama was now playing out directly under the public gaze. Everyone had seen his face staring out from every newsstand and directly from their TVs into their homes; he was instantly recognisable.
The Live Lineup
Law enforcement did not hesitate to get Ramirez into a live lineup arranged for the 5th of September, 1985, a couple of days after two award ceremonies had taken place honouring those citizens instrumental in bringing the infamous Night Stalker off the streets. Honours first, identification second.
Richard was reluctant to participate. The circumstances of his arrest, echoed by every media outlet, threatened to taint the procedure, making an unbiased identification a distant reality. Among the six individuals on the viewing platform, he feasibly stood out with his injured head; in identity parades, all participants must closely match each other and the eyewitness descriptions. The last part is ridiculous, as no eyewitness clearly described Richard Ramirez; their descriptions varied in height, ethnicity, dental health, age, and hair colour.
He was assigned position two and hung a card bearing that number around his neck. The media scrutiny, both excessive and unavoidable, was a significant problem, for amongst the millions of viewers would be the victims and witnesses themselves.
Witness Coaching – A Tainted Procedure
“Deputy Allen Adashek, who was appointed to represent the defendant soon after his arrest, testified regarding the circumstances of the lineup, in which the defendant was identified by several of the victims. Deputy Public Defender Judith Crawford was also present as an observer for the defendant. Just prior to the lineup Crawford saw a police officer, who was conversing with some children, raise his index and middle fingers. When the lineup formed the defendant was the second person in line. Crawford later saw another officer make a similar gesture, raising two fingers. A still photograph taken from a videotape of the lineup showed a police officer raising two fingers”
Item 15, People v. Ramirez, No. S012944 (Cal. 2006) 7th of August 2006.
In a wholly inappropriate procedure, the many eyewitnesses called to the live lineup were allowed to congregate and swap notes. An article from the Monrovia Post claims that the witnesses gathered together could hear and see when an identification had been made.
They likely influenced each other, encouraged by the officers’ suggestive showing of two fingers. One might wonder if they were being subtly coached to pick the man whose guilt was already assumed; there was pressure to make that identification
Worse still, Felipe Solano, a criminal associate of Richard’s, who was found in possession of stolen goods belonging to some victims, was present. He was allowed to attend the lineup to identify a man he knew well.
Confusing and conflating an already complicated matter, tables laden with the items collected from Solano were in an adjacent room. Witnesses and family members were invited to look over these to discern what (if anything) belonged to themselves or their deceased relatives. Out of over 1500 items, less than a quarter were identified. It should be noted that none were recovered from Ramirez himself.
The public defenders who had attended the lineups filed an objection sheet, pointing out the media saturation, visible head wounds and the deputies and their fingers. However, during the trial itself (according to Philip Carlo’s book, Night Stalker: The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez), Prosecutor Philip Halpin said he’d never been given it. As it turns out, that wasn’t correct, the objection sheet was duly produced and handed to Public Defender Ray Wallen for the jury to read. Halpin was proven to have been “economical” with the truth.
Picking Ramirez
Maria Hernandez identified Richard first at the lineup and then again at the preliminary hearing, where she admitted to having seen his face on the TV and in the paper multiple times. In the original crime report, she described a Caucasian or light-skinned Mexican man with brown eyes, between 5ft9 and 6ft1.
On her witness identification card, she wrote that although he had a little beard and moustache on the night of the attack, “I feel it’s 2”. Maria didn’t seem sure who she had seen during the brief interaction with the man who shot her, later admitting she could not identify her assailant from memory.
Carol Kyle, in her original police statement, described her attacker as having “straight, white teeth”, emphasised when she created her second composite (see above). She, too, chose Ramirez, identifying him by his voice.
Kyle identified him again at the preliminary hearing, where she testified that before the lineup, she had seen his face in the newspapers and on the TV after the police had identified Richard as the Night Stalker. The police also told her that the Night Stalker would be in the lineup, a blatant leading of a witness. Although Kyle stated that she had seen Ramirez on TV, she did not call the police and tell them that he was the man who raped and robbed her at gunpoint
Sophie Dickman initially told the police that the man who raped her was a white man, approximately 5ft8 or 5ft 9; she repeated this to the officer who helped her to create the composite of her attacker.
Sophie went on to identify the 6ft 1 Hispanic Ramirez at the lineup and again at the preliminary hearing. During the hearing, she testified she had seen Richard’s photograph in the news “lots of times” before she picked him out. Five days earlier, Dickman was told by the police that the man who attacked her was the Night Stalker. However, she did not recognise him when she first observed him on her TV, arousing suspicion that the police information led her to choose the man from her television screen rather than her recollection
At trial, Sophie Dickman denied she twice told the police that her attacker was a 5ft 8 Caucasian and blamed the mistaking of his ethnicity on not wearing her glasses.
Somkid Khovananth initially identified Ramirez at the lineup and again at the preliminary hearing; her description of the man who murdered her husband and raped her is, perhaps, the closest we come to Ramirez. She recalled a Caucasian man, 30 to 35 years old, tanned, brown-eyed, with gapped, stained teeth and curly brown hair, who stood around 6 feet tall, although she initially told her sister-in-law that he was dark-skinned. She testified that she had seen him on TV a few weeks after the attack and knew it was him, but did not call the police.
With her assistance, police artist, Fernando Ponce, created the most famous Ramirez composite of all.
Virginia Petersen described a tall male with a light complexion, angular face, with hair combed back from his face. She identified Ramirez at the lineup, the preliminary hearing and again at trial, where she changed the description of his hair to “wild and shaggy”. Of course, the man in chains at the defence table did, by that time, have what could be described as wild, shaggy hair. That is not how Richard’s hair was in August of 1985.
Virginia admitted that before the lineup, she had seen him on TV and in the newspapers “six or seven times” and recognised him, but, like the others, she did not call the police.
Sakina Abowath: It is unclear whether Sakina attended the lineup, as sources differ, although she appears to have participated in the property identification. From her original police statement and crime report, we know she described the man who murdered her husband, raped and beat her, as a white male, 6ft – 6ft 2, with blonde or light brown curly hair.
Abowath was to change her testimony after subsequent police interviews, with the suspect’s appearance changing until she identified the unmistakably dark-haired Ramirez later in court.
Jorge Gallegos, prosecution witness in the Yu incident, in his police statement, given the night of Tsai Lian Yu’s murder, described her killer as either “Oriental” or “Latino”, dark-haired and around 5ft 6 to 5ft 7. Although he only saw the suspect from behind, how he knew or thought he may be Asian is anyone’s guess.
He did not attend the lineup; instead, he identified Ramirez as the 5ft 7, possibly Asian killer, at the preliminary hearing. Surprising everyone, perhaps even himself, as he initially told police that he could not identify Ramirez.
Launie Dempster described a “young Mexican male,” but it wasn’t until after his arrest, when she saw him on TV and in the papers she delivered on her daily round, that she decided he was tall and “lanky.” She did not attend the lineup; she identified him at the preliminary hearing and again at trial.
Inez Erikson identified Ramirez, not from his face, which she never saw; instead, she could recognise him from his voice and walk. Two years after the attack, Erikson seemed unsure and asked to view the videotapes of the lineup again to jog her memory, telling the judge that she could identify him because of the unusual way he pronounced the word “jewellery”. However, the video in THIS POST shows nothing distinguishing about how the word was spoken. Erikson admitted at the preliminary hearing in 1987 that she had seen his face in the papers.
This Orange County case ultimately never went to trial.
Kathy Moore originally described the man who attacked her and her boyfriend, Edward Wildgans, as a 5ft 8 Caucasian man with thinning hair. At the lineup, she saw Richard Ramirez’s hair as “thinning” and chose him. He could hardly be regarded as balding even with a head injury and shaven patch; there is also a marked difference between 5ft 8 and 6ft 1.
Ramirez was never charged with this crime.
“The suspect was described to police as a white male, 5ft 8 inches tall with thinning hair. He was wearing jeans and a dark jacket. The woman told police the man had a “dazed look” about him”
From the San Francisco Examiner 3rd of June, 1985
Of the child abduction victims, including the one adult witness, the descriptions were given of a white man, around 5ft 8, with dirty-blonde hair and a medium build. The exception was Anastasia Hronas, who recalled a white man with dark hair, around 5ft 7 in height, aged between 35 and 45; he appeared to have a tattoo of (what she described as) a Native American headdress on his arm.
These children are almost certainly among the group observed being coached that day. (see above)
Media Influence and Memory
How could an audience of witnesses be induced to identify someone who appears not to match the descriptions given initially to the police? Memory fades with time; clarity lessens; it doesn’t grow.
In criminal cases, the role of expert witnesses is crucial, particularly in complex cases like this one. Richard’s defence counsel did engage an expert, Dr Elizabeth Loftus, PhD, a renowned professor of psychology and social behaviour, criminology, law and society. However, their amateurishness was glaringly evident as the defence failed to provide her with the necessary case details for her testimony. This shocking display of incompetence, a recurring theme throughout the trial, should be no surprise to our regular readers.
In 2004, Dr Loftus provided a statement as part of Ramirez’s appeal process. She revealed that during her trial appearance for the defence, their ineptitude was evident. They limited her to general information about witness memory retrieval and retention, failing to draw her on crucial factors related to the actual case she was appointed to assist with.
“In petitioner’s case, I was not asked to render an opinion about the facts and circumstances of eyewitness identification. If I had been asked, I would have rendered an opinion based on the following:
(a) Procedures employed during preparation of composite drawings prepared by law enforcement with the assistance of eyewitnesses.
(b) inconsistencies in physical descriptions of the suspect given by eyewitnesses.
(c) massive publicity following petitioner’s arrest on August 311985, including extensive television coverage of petitioner’s face.
(d) the impact of post-event information on eyewitness identification, including the circumstances surrounding the September 5, 1985, pretrial live lineup and simultaneous property lineup, and multiple viewing of petitioner in court, which had the potential to alter, supplement, or contaminate the witnesses’ recollection”.Declaration of Dr Elizabeth Loftus, document 7-20 from the Federal Petition of Habeas Corpus, 2008
This lack of preparation and utilisation of her expertise is a clear testament to the defence counsel’s lack of professionalism.
What the jury heard from Dr Loftus was a general, academic explanation that probably caused them to switch off, as it bore no relation to the case they were actively engaged in.
They needed to hear how what she was saying fitted in with each of the eyewitnesses, such as influences from the media or the police and the inconsistencies of their statements. This is known as “post event information”, which Loftus talked about as a technicality but didn’t explain its importance concerning the Ramirez case – just how much information coming from each witness was from their memory? They all admitted to seeing Ramirez’s face on the TV; their stories changed. Eyewitnesses are more likely to remember post-event information received rather than the event itself, according to Dr Loftus.
“Post-event information may contaminate or alter memory. (Id. at 22712, 22718-19.) Witnesses who are exposed to media coverage or asked leading questions during interviews may have distorted memory. Retrieval of memory occurs when a witness answers questions or makes an identification.”
Id. at 22712-15.” Federal Petition of Habeas Corpus, page 141
The jury didn’t learn how fear, stress and the focus of attention on weapons can have a considerable effect on the retention of memory in many victims. Some jurors and alternates waited for explanations and cross-examinations that didn’t materialise, leaving them questions without answers regarding eyewitness testimonies.
“I remember that at least one of the victims described their attacker as having dirty-blond hair and Mr Ramirez’s hair was clearly dark. That distinction was really significant and his lawyers didn’t do anything to address just significant this discrepancy was”
Declaration of alternate juror, Bonita Smith. Document 20-8 from the Federal Petition of Habeas Corpus.
In some cases, even race has a part to play. However, Loftus explained that even science isn’t entirely sure why, but when victims, eyewitnesses and perpetrators are from different races, making a reliable identification becomes more difficult.
“429. Mistakes frequently occur in the eyewitness identification of strangers if the witness and stranger are of different races. In Dr. Loftus’s opinion, cross-racial identification is difficult for reasons that researchers do not fully understand. (194 RT 22715-16.) On cross-examination, Loftus admitted that she did not interview eyewitnesses in this case with respect to reliability of cross-racial identification”.
Federal Petition of Habeas Corpus, page 141.
Voice Identification
Dr Kathy Pezdek, PhD, in her 2008 declaration, gave her opinion on the voice identifications given by Carol Kyle and Inez Erikson as follows:
“Several relevant eyewitness factors were not included in Dr. Loftus’s testimony. These are factors about which relevant research was available at the time of the trial in 1989. These factors include the following:
(i)Voice Identification Accuracy – Several of the eyewitnesses in this case identified Mr. Ramirez at the live lineup based on his voice. The research on voice identification suggests that voice identification is even less reliable, and fades over time even faster than face identification (cf. Clifford, 1983). For example, when Carol Kyle identified Ramirez at the live lineup (156 RT 17972) she noted down on her witness card ‘I’m absolutely positive. Even the infliction (sic) in his voice is the same..’”Declaration of Dr Kathy Pezdek, document 16-7
The Bias of an In-Court Identification
Identifying a suspect in court can be a very biased affair. It differs from a lineup situation in that the witness isn’t given a similar set of individuals to choose from.
For many witnesses, the mere fact that a defendant is there, wearing a prison suit and usually in chains, must mean that the individual is guilty, especially when constant media coverage tells them so.
In the Ramirez case, some witnesses, notably Jorge Gallegos and Launie Dempster, made their first identifications during the preliminary hearing. Neither attended the lineup, and both of their testimonies were unreliable
There are many factors to consider when questioning why eyewitnesses changed their stories. Still, the constant, relentless media attention and coverage of this case, coupled with the considerable pressure to get that conviction at any cost, must all be held responsible for the impossibility of a fair trial.
In the aftermath of this tainted lineup, public defender Alan Adashek told the LA Times:
“The publicity is so intense, so intense and constant, over so many days, it’s really a problem. A major problem. The effect of all this massive publicity can be very negative in terms of a fair trial.”
And so it came to pass; the first stage in the railroading of Richard Ramirez. The errors surrounding the live lineup denied Ramirez due process and effective assistance of counsel, violating his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment.
Additional source: Document 16-7 from the Federal Petition of Habeas Corpus.
(Originally written and published June 2022)
Expendable For A Cause. 
Leave a comment