Expendable For A Cause.

And so the Tall, Short, Balding, Blonde, Dark, Moustachioed, Dark or Light Skinned, Asian/Hispanic/Caucasian Man Was Identified.

We’ve discussed the infamous lineup many times on this blog and in the book. You can read more about it HERE, HERE and HERE.
It’s hard to imagine that anyone with critical thinking could look at the lineup procedure on 5th September 1985 and not see it for what it was: corrupt, manipulated, and influenced by the media and law enforcement to guarantee an outcome everybody wanted.  

The prosecution needed the eyewitnesses to positively identify Richard, as they had little physical evidence to link him to any of the crimes. Witnesses were permitted to gather and mingle in the presence of the media and camera crews, and they were coached via hand gestures. All were able to see and hear who each was choosing.

We’ve used the still taken from footage of the lineup in a few previous posts. In it, we can see an officer, probably Deputy John Jones from the Sheriff’s Department, clearly holding up two fingers as he signals to the assembled audience who they should identify.

One photograph could be argued away, but when you watch the accompanying video footage, it becomes more apparent what the officer is doing. He is leading the witnesses and telling them the number of the suspect they want to be identified. Jones himself declared that it was a gesture to an elderly lady who was hard of hearing. That seems nonsense unless the lady in question inserted herself into both adult groups and then joined the children, who were separately instructed. His reasoning also does not explain why he needed to show a deaf lady two fingers; what was he trying to tell her?

Judith Crawford

The unscrupulous behaviour did not go unnoticed by Public Defender Judith Crawford; she witnessed the deputies controlling the lineup repeat the gesture to the adults and children on separate occasions. Crawford made notes regarding what she had seen, which became the basis for two pre-trial motions and a big part of the later post-conviction appeals.
Watching what was unfolding in front of her, Crawford scribbled in her notepad, because, one imagines, she didn’t trust herself to look away and miss something important. We discovered the note she made as we read through the case files. (We did strain our eyes over this one!)

“Prior to 1^st line-up, saw man squat down and make a V-sign with thumb and finger tucking in.“

A-K [probably refers to the surname order of witnesses]: “Someone else make a similar motion. Squatting man – John Jones, LASD.” [L.A. County Sheriff’s Department].

“2^nd person, Tom Hageboek, and told Adashek [Ramirez’s attorney] & turned own notes to ? Office (probably the district attorney). Little girl turned around and appeared to talk to someone behind her. Saw female deputy about 3 minutes later.”

(Thanks, Venning!)

We unearthed a statement of facts relating to the lineup during our visit to the Hall of Records in LA. The document we found was Richard’s defence’s attempt to overturn the earlier court ruling that had denied the motion to disallow the eyewitness identifications due to unethical procedures.  The document is dated 24th September 1987, just over two years since the live lineup occurred.

“It is important for the court to take note that at no time prior to the line up, and after the witnesses had been exposed to news coverage of defendant’s arrest and the bulletins issued by public officials, did any of the witnesses call the police or the prosecutor to indicate that they believed [the] defendant was their assailant..“

We had to take these photos surreptitiously with our phones, as they had not yet given us permission to take pictures; that came later. Apologies for the bad quality; below are some cropped versions. (You will probably need to enlarge)

Arturo H

I make no secret about my feelings regarding Richard’s defence (they were appalling) and have written articles about it, but as inadequate, ill-informed, and ineffectual as Arturo Hernandez was, he was doing something (it is incredible to see him actually turn up), although much more should have been done. A better qualified and competent lawyer would have had a better chance against the wily Philip Halpin, who had been weaving the narrative for a month before Richard was even a suspect; P. Philip Halpin, Deputy District Attorney, knew precisely how he would prosecute the case.

“…it was only after the witnesses knew they were to participate in a lineup with knowledge that defendant was the person suspected in the “Night Stalker” crimes that they were taken into the lineup room..“

Hernandez was correct in his representation of what occurred in September 1985. The media, with law enforcement and  Deputy District Attorney Halpin, drip-fed the witnesses (and the wider public) the description of the “Night Stalker” and then projected him into their homes before telling them exactly who they were gathered together to identify. 

It’s interesting how that sort of messaging works. It induced a victim of a completely unrelated crime to want to go and identify Richard Ramirez as her own attacker. Even though she categorically knew it wasn’t him.

Additional information:

Richard Ramirez: False Child Abduction Allegations – Expendable For A Cause.

“Murder Clothes” – The Myth of the Night Stalker’s Appearance – Expendable For A Cause.

Why the Khovananth Incident Was a Pivotal Moment – Expendable For A Cause.

Our BOOK