July 20, 1985

****This post contains details of sexual assault and crime scene information. Reader discretion is advised. ****

After robbing and killing the Kneidings, seemingly the Night Stalker hadn’t had enough pillaging and murdering for the night, so he headed to Sun Valley. Per Somkid Khovananth’s report to the police, she woke up at 12:30 a.m. to let her husband in, as he had just gotten home from work. He went to bed, and she stayed in the living room. She locked the front door. A sliding glass door from the living room to the backyard was kept open. Sometime after this, she was awakened by the opening of the sliding glass door. She saw a tall, skinny man with a gun, who told her to be quiet and threatened to kill her. She said he went to the bedroom, shot her husband, and then beat and raped her. She reported her attacker then took her into the bathroom, tied her hands with a portable hair dryer cord, led her back into the bedroom, beat her again, and forced her to engage in oral copulation and anal sex.

Around this time, the alarm clock went off in her son’s room, indicating it was 6 a.m.; it was now daylight outside. The assailant went to her son’s bedroom, beat him up, proceeded to the kitchen, got some fruit juice, and returned to her son’s room. 15 minutes later, the attacker began looking for jewelry and money. She told him there was jewelry in a kitchen drawer, gave him $80 cash, and a silver coin collection. Somkid said her assailant took her into her son’s room; she saw he had been tied up, his pajama bottoms were torn off, and a sock was shoved in his mouth. In an effort to get the assailant out of the house, she told him there was also jewelry in her husband’s car in the garage. They went to the garage and found $15 in a wallet under the front seat. When they went back inside the house, the perpetrator asked for a suitcase. He put a VCR in the suitcase, put the jewelry into a pillowcase, and put the pillowcase into the suitcase. Somkid stated he then bound her again, leaving her on the master bedroom floor, slapped her, and left. LAPD arrived at the Khovananth residence at 7 a.m.

*Document 20-3, LAPD press release regarding the Khovananth crime.

Chainarong Khovananth had been killed by a gunshot wound to the head with a weapon that had been fired at very close range. A small caliber bullet was recovered from his scalp. LAPD found the master bedroom and kitchen had been ransacked. Cabinet drawers were pulled out and food items were on the floor. In the son’s room, there were items on the bed and floor, including a suitcase with items inside. On a dresser was a butcher knife and a container of apple juice. Shoe prints were found on the front, side, and back porches and the hallway floor leading to the master bedroom. Three lifts were taken from the shoe print on the front porch; police were unable to get clear lifts from the shoeprints in the hallway and back porch.

Chainarong Khovananth’s sister spoke with Somkid Khovananth the day after her brother’s murder. Somkid told her sister-in-law that her attacker had “curly hair and dark skin.”

The Khovananth Composite

Although we do not have Somkid’s police report, we have detailed information concerning the Khovnanth incident in the 2008 Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, including Somkid’s original description of her attacker and statements she made shortly after the crimes and in court.

After the incident and before the live line-up, Somkid met with police three to four times. She helped create a composite sketch that became the most prominent of the Night Stalker case, in which she described her assailant as having “stained, gapped teeth.” It was then law enforcement set their sight on finding an individual with teeth in a poor state of health. From this moment on, the Night Stalker, aka the Valley Intruder, would be synonymous with “bad teeth,” with the Night Stalker Task Force proclaiming that the man who attacked Somkid Khovananth was the same man seen by all other witnesses, even though no other alleged Night Stalker victim said anything distinctive about their assailants’ teeth. A state of panic ensued throughout the Los Angeles area.

Composite created from Somkid’s description

During her in court testimony, Somkid acknowledged she initially described her assailant as a having a “brown face, like a Mexican.” She also stated she saw Richard’s picture on television and in the newspapers several times before his arrest, and she did not call the police.

Document 14, Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

The Evidence

Law enforcement found shoeprints on the front porch, back step near the sliding glass door, and hallway. Lifts were made from the shoeprint on the front porch (law enforcement was unable to obtain lifts from the other areas). LASD criminalist Gerald Burke examined the shoe print lifts from the front porch and concluded the impression was made by an Avia aerobics shoe, size 11-½ to 12. Despite not having complete impressions, Burke further determined that the prints on the back and side porch areas were also made from an Avia aerobics shoe.

The shoe print on the front porch

Prosecution firearms examiner, Edward Robinson, testified that the bullet found at the crime scene matched those from the Zazzara scene-from a .22 revolver.

Property recovered from Felipe Solano and identified by Somkid allegedly linked the Khovananth crime to Richard through his connection with Solano.

The prosecution urged conviction based on similarities to the Abowath case.

A butcher knife and a container of apple juice were found in the son’s bedroom.

The butcher knife

Reasonable Doubts

Identification-Somkid’s description of her attacker was inconsistent, varying from a white individual to a dark-skinned individual. Her identification was tainted by images she had seen of Richard on television and in the newspapers. The Hernández’s did not present evidence that would have demonstrated Somkid’s initial description of her attacker was more reliable than her courtroom identification. Expert testimony on eyewitness identification could have shed light on the factors impacting her identification, casting doubt on her in-court testimony.

Somkid’s initial statement described her attacker as six feet tall and 30-35 years old. He wore brown pants, a multi-colored shirt, and had loose, brown curly hair, and a “brown face.” She described her attacker as tall and skinny with gapped teeth, tan skin, and as having an “accent” she could not identify and spoke in an “uneducated” manner. She stated he wore gloves that were gray or light brown cloth (Document 14, p. 87).

*Richard appeared in court a few days after his arrest and approximately six weeks after the Khovananth crime, bearing no resemblance to a dark-skinned, 30–35-year-old man. *

Biological evidence-No evidence of fingerprints, hair, semen, or blood belonging to Richard was discovered at the scene.

Shoe prints-Criminalist Burke lacked the necessary experience and training to effectively compare shoeprint impressions. The casting impressions were distorted, and measurements were obtained incorrectly, leading to critical inaccuracies. The lifts made from the shoeprint on the front porch were missing the crucial heel area of the shoe, making it impossible to accurately determine the exact model and size. Similarly, the prints near the back step and hallway were partial prints and inadequate for determining a shoe model or size. Furthermore, no Avia shoes were found on or in Richard’s possession, and his shoe size was never determined at any point. Despite this, the defense conceded the prosecution’s shoeprint evidence, missing a significant opportunity to present reasonable doubt by not seeking a forensic shoeprint specialist to examine the evidence. Consequently, the jury never heard that the shoe print evidence was insufficient to identify the exact model of the shoe and that thousands of shoes could have left the same impression. See Shoe Print post for further information.

Ballistics-the bullet fragment recovered from the crime scene was too distorted for an accurate identification. As mentioned in part one, the Khovananth attack was originally thought to have involved a .25 semi-automatic pistol, according to Sergeant Robert Christansen. The weapons used in the Kneiding & Khovananth crimes were never found; no legitimate ballistics testing was ever conducted comparing the guns to the bullets. The firearms examiner merely looked at the bullets and claimed they came from a .22 weapon but not even the same .22 weapon. Despite glaring inaccuracies in the ballistics testing results and the discrepancies in the firearms examiners’ reports, the defense neglected to challenge the bullet distortions and firearms identification evidence, allowing the prosecution to establish a connection between the Zazzara and Khovananth crimes. See ballistics post for further details.

Solano’s Involvement-the only aspect that linked the Kneiding case to the Khovananth attack was that stolen property from both homes was recovered from known ‘fence’ Felipe Solano, an admitted liar in possession of thousands of dollars’ worth of stolen property who was granted immunity from prosecution. He claimed Richard gave him all the stolen items. There are explanations for why he may have said this: Sandra Hotchkiss, with whom Richard committed burglaries, said Solano was beaten up by police. He might have been coerced to say Richard gave him everything; Richard may have been a runner of stolen goods. Solano subsequently faced charges of perjury, which should have raised significant doubts about the reliability of his statements and the credibility of his character.

Transferable evidence-The prosecution’s theory of events was that on July 20, 1985, Richard Ramírez stabbed the Kneiding’s with a knife and then shot them with a .22 caliber gun. He left the Kneiding’s on Stanley Avenue in Glendale and, “within minutes,” was at the Khovananth residence, on Schoenborn Street in Sun Valley, in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, 14.6 miles away.

*The 14.6-mile route from the Kneiding residence in Glendale to the Khovananth home in Sun Valley.

Did Somkid describe her assailant as having any scratches or wounds? Did he have any blood on him or on his clothes? Somkid Khovananth did not report any such thing – and her description was the most detailed of all the victims. Given she noticed several specific details about his appearance, it’s doubtful that she wouldn’t have noticed if her attacker had blood or scratches on him. It’s also extremely difficult to believe that if Somkid’s attacker was the same individual who killed the Kneiding’s, he wouldn’t have arrived at the Khovananth residence a bloody mess!

The Kneiding crimes were brutal attacks that left an incredible amount of forensic evidence and blood spatter on the walls, carpets, mattress, and curtains. Lela Kneiding was shot twice at close range, so her blood and bodily tissues would have ended up on the perpetrator’s clothes, shoes, skin, and hair. It would have been virtually impossible not to bring any blood or trace evidence from the Kneiding crime scene to the Khovananths. According to the prosecution’s statement, Richard made the 15-mile drive to the Khovananth residence within minutes after killing the Kneiding’s. So, he would not have had time to wash up or change clothes. He would have arrived at the Khovananths saturated with blood and biological evidence from the Kneiding crimes and the evidence would have also been in his vehicle. Had forensic evidence from the Kneiding crime been in his vehicle or at the Khovananth property, the prosecution would have undoubtedly used this evidence against him.

Epic Failure

The prosecution’s case against Richard Ramírez in the murder of Chainarong Khovananth and the sexual assault of Somkid Khovananth was NOT proven beyond a reasonable doubt! The lack of physical evidence against him strongly indicates that Richard’s conviction resulted from the failure of his inept defense to adequately counter the charges against him. The defense attorneys, by neglecting to vigorously challenge and refute the prosecution’s case on numerous crucial points, ultimately facilitated Richard’s wrongful conviction.

It’s important to note that we do not discount or minimize the suffering of the victims and their families. These crimes were devastating tragedies, and those responsible should have been brought to justice. Unfortunately, that did not occur. Instead, a young man with serious physical and mental health issues, limited means, and financial support was wrongfully convicted for crimes that were never proven he committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

Source: 2008 Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Richard Ramírez vs. Robert Ayers.

KayCee