Expendable For A Cause.

To begin with, I want to thank you once again for the support you’ve already given us, for your encouragement, engagement, and willingness to ask the questions most do not. 

I’m not going to lie; this case is tricky, and we’ve done our best to break it all down and put it back together in the only way that makes sense. We try our best not to tell you what to think, but we have given you the tools to take what we’ve said and look at the case with fresh eyes, helping to peel back nearly forty years of deliberate misinformation/disinformation and analyse whether the narrative you’ve been sold is credible. 

I realise it’s not easy.

As you know, we don’t collaborate. We have “allies,” other researchers whose work we also support. In this instance, the people at the Dahmer Analysis and the Substack account, Questioning the Night Stalker Case, inspired this post.

---

2022 and Beyond

When I created this blog in 2022, I did so out of desperation because no one was asking questions about the glaringly obvious holes in the case; no one was conversing about the serious stuff.  

Three years later, we’ve written well over 100 articles, the book is out, and there is at least one other blog, the aforementioned, fabulous and scathing blogger over on Substack, and the YouTuber who goes by the name SataysandMash (If you’re out there, please tell me why you’re called that!)  I’ve also come across a couple of articles on Medium written by someone who has clearly read our work. There was also a Tumblr account (now removed) held by someone who comments here, and another follower of ours regularly gets her TikTok accounts banned as she tries to spread information.  Occasionally, amongst the usual nonsensical YouTube comments, we see moments of lucidity, but they are few and far between.

Yet there are thousands of edits with endless comments gushing about cheekbones and hair from adoring “fans”, and countless videos on YouTube from supposed “experts”, all full of disinformation. Then there are the “body language experts”, falling over each other to diagnose, analyse and make unfounded observations based on (as we know) heavily edited footage, with not one of them ever stopping to wonder why Richard Ramirez’s psychiatric reports have been suppressed and unacknowledged or to consider that the footage they’re viewing is cobbled together, purposely omitting the film sequences that show him in a decidedly “human” manner.

Alongside the atrocious Netflix documentary came a deluge of Carrillo appearances on multiple podcasts, where the script is static, the questions are few, and no one dares to stray from the path.
Well, we dared.

---

Here’s Where You Come In

Often, you ask us, “How can we help?  What can we do?”   Well, there are things you can do, and I will explain.

The researchers from the Dahmer case (I am paraphrasing) said that if just ten people make ten comments on videos spreading false information, in this instance about Richard Ramirez, think how quickly that information might spread.

This is what we tend to do ourselves; we don’t engage on YouTube, and we usually drop an info-bomb and leave them to it.   Otherwise, you’re left with the predictable “Get help!” or some other derogatory nonsense, which isn’t worth the energy, and very often, comments get removed, but at least we’ve tried.  I also recommend turning off notifications. I do because I have no intention of returning to argue with some “gore boy” who doesn’t know the facts.

Equally, in-depth conversations with Ramirez fangirls are pointless; most don’t seem to care about the trial, and many enjoy the thought of his guilt, which is disgusting.  Raising these topics can be very difficult because of those issues.  We all get tarred with the hybristophilliac brush, and we’re not here to talk about his looks.

I have often said to never engage in battles in comment sections; it’s pointless and can lead to severe feelings of anxiety or stress (judging by what some of you have told me). I still hold to that, and we don’t advocate starting a comment section war, but sometimes one comment can sow a seed in an enquiring mind.  After all, isn’t that why we’re all here? Something piqued your interest at some point along this road, and you found us.  Who knows? You might even inspire someone to do their own research.

---

Things You Could Say

YouTube is particularly problematic, as it automatically filters out certain words, phrases, and links. So don’t post links to the 2008 petition or blogs; they will disappear immediately.

Instead, type “Richard Ramirez vs Robert L Ayres, Document 14″, leaving out any mention of Plainsite, as I suspect that gets flagged. If you want to send people to us, type the words Expendable For a Cause, not our web address, and don’t write the word “blog”, as it triggers automatic removal.   

 You can also use this list as a template.

When Carrillo or anyone else is going on about “stained, gapped teeth”, you could say:

• The only victim to mention stained, gapped teeth was Somkid Khovananth in July 85. No one else.
• Carol Kyle said his teeth were straight and white, and police artists even drew a new sketch to highlight the nice teeth.
• Sakina Abowath first told police that her attacker had “wide teeth with no gaps” but changed her story after subsequent police interviews when she was asked IF he had gapped teeth.

When Carrillo talks about the “unique” Avias: model 440:

• Many shoeprints were inconclusive at crime scenes. In 2004, a forensic scientist named Lisa DiMeo, who specialised in shoeprints, blood spatter, and tyre tread patterns debunked the “rare shoe” argument. 13 different Avia models could have made some prints, putting tens of thousands of shoes in the frame.
• There’s no proof that the killer wore black shoes (being black made them rare in size 11.5). But the “man in black” is a myth because victims didn’t all say he wore black.
• The shoes were model 445B, not 440. 440s were women’s sneakers.
• The prosecution’s defence expert (who wasn’t trained at the time) gave the jury false and misleading evidence, and in the case of Mary Louise Cannon, “mocked up” a shoe print by taping a clear overlay of a Avia print onto a photograph of a piece of carpet.
• The shoes were not new in 1985; they were initially released in 1981, and there are old advertisements and posters to prove it.
• There is no evidence that Richard threw the sneakers off the Golden Gate Bridge.
• Diane Feinstein’s press conference, where she revealed the “unique” shoes, went out on 23rd August, but the Stadia shoes (if that is indeed what they were) had already been found at the Abowath crime scene on 8th August. Her revelation did not cause a change in brand.

When ballistics are mentioned and lied about:

• No firearms connected to any Night Stalker crime were found in Richard’s possession.
• The Jennings .22 semi-automatic said to have been used in the Doi incident, was given to the police by informant Jesse Perez. Perez initially told police he had been sold the weapon 6 to 9 months before the murder of William Doi.
• Prosecutor Philip Halpin knowingly allowed bad witnesses to give false and misleading information.
• The Jennings .22 was conveniently lost before the trial started.
• The original ballistics report done in 1985 showed that the expended bullets and fragments were too distorted for reliable comparison. Two firearms officers concerned could not agree with each other or the prosecution and were not called to testify.
• The third firearms officer, Edward Robinson, tested the evidence in 86 and followed the prosecution’s contrived theory to link unrelated crimes.
• Prosecutor Halpin defied a court order to bring in the original firearms officer, Robert Christansen, so he could be questioned by Richard’s defence. He did not want his case tested.
• Renowned firearms expert Paul Dougherty, who was retained for Ramirez’s appeals, stated that the ballistics evidence was faulty and unreliable and should all be retested.

Child abductions:

• The original 1985 newspaper reports said the suspect was 5’9″, had a medium build, and had blonde or mousey brown hair – nothing like Richard. Law enforcement gave them that information.
• Anastasia, the little girl from the Netflix documentary, described a short man with a Native American headdress tattooed on his arm. Richard had no such tattoo.
• There were multiple abductors in the Los Angeles area at the time, and it had nothing to do with Richard.
• Carrillo is being “economical” with the truth when he says the children all described a man with “stained, gapped teeth, tall, thin, light-skinned Hispanic and a pungent odour.” Why did the newspapers describe an average, fair-haired man if this was the case? After all, the police gave them the information.
• During the initial child abduction cases, the affected children and an adult witness provided consistent descriptions of the same individual. 5ft9, mousey blonde/dirty blonde hair. The age was given as around 30 to 35 years old.

The murder of Mei Leung, the DNA and the Handkerchief – generally a “go-to” argument when they can’t think of anything else.

• The DNA was a mixed sample; they knew that in 2009.
• They got a hit on a second suspect in 2012 but kept it hidden until it was leaked to the press in 2016.  The second suspect’s name has not been released.
• Mixed samples are notoriously hard to separate. With millions of alleles combined within a test tube, it is challenging to determine which allele belongs to which individual.
• The San Francisco Police Department’s crime lab was closed because of malpractice and incompetence. This was during the time Ramirez’s supposed DNA was discovered, and those people were directly involved in the scandal.
• The cold case unit was created in 2007 to essentially pin more crimes on Ramirez, who just so happened to have appeals being processed.
• The original suspect in the case was said to be white, round-faced, around 5ft 10 in height, and with light brown hair.
• The “Satanic” aspect of Mei’s murder was a later 2009 addition.  

Did the Night Stalker wear black?

• In short, no.
• Somkid Khovananth said the killer wore a blue shirt with a multicoloured pattern.
• Carol Kyle said he wore a tan and black plaid shirt.
• The witness to the Yu murder said he wore light blue pants and a light blue shirt.
• Maria Hernandez said he wore a white shirt under his black jacket.
• And if you see Carrillo saying that all victims described a man in a “Members Only type jacket”, say that it was only Maria Hernandez. No one else said this. It’s in the crime reports.  You could also say that Maria also described a man with facial hair, a moustache is shown on the police sketch she helped to create.

When Richard Ramirez is wrongly called a psychopath:

• During his life, eleven psychiatrists/doctors evaluated him and found he had frontal and temporal lobe damage.
• His epilepsy, left untreated, resulted in psychosis.
• He was also the victim of emotional and physical trauma and suffered more head injuries than people realise.
• He had a low IQ. It was between 86 and 91, contrary to the popular narrative. This is also in court documents. The clever, manipulative killer is all part of the myth.

Witnesses – why did they identify him?

• The eyewitnesses were coached before a rigged lineup.
• They were allowed to mingle and swap notes and could see and hear who each was identifying.
• Public defenders saw deputies signalling with a hand to two different groups, including children, prompting them who to choose.  
• They were also told that the Night Stalker would be at the lineup; this was after they had all been exposed to the media saturation of his image, while the mayor and the police proclaimed his guilt.
• Tell them to go to the police reports in the court documents and read them themselves.
• Video footage and stills exist to show what happened.

Fingerprints.

• Contrary to what you’ve heard, Ramirez’s fingerprints were never independently verified.
• Police did not feed his prints into the new database, they input his name only, which brought up eight results.
• The only things they ever conclusively proved that he touched were his own belongings found in his car.
• The US government refused permission for the fingerprint expert Ron Smith, retained by his Habeas lawyers, to examine the fingerprint evidence for his appeals. If there was nothing to hide, why?

Serology:

• No semen belonging to Richard Ramirez was found in any incident he was convicted of.
• Semen left inside Sakina Abowath was found not to be Richard’s.
• No hair that belonged to him was found.
• Blood found at two crime scenes was found to not belong to either the victim concerned or Ramirez.
• Interestingly, the prosecution never used any results of the rape-test kits in evidence at all.

Pentagrams?

• It is a myth that Richard Ramirez left pentagrams on every victim or in their homes as a “calling card”.
• Two crime scenes had pentagrams – Bell and Lang in the  Los Angeles crimes and the Pan incident in San Francisco.

Attorneys:

• Richard had the most incompetent lawyers known to man.
• They practically abandoned him to his fate once they realised no book/film deal was coming.
• Because of their failings, the prosecution’s case was never vigorously tested.

But he confessed!

• No recordings of any confessions have ever been released.
• At the hearing, Judge Nelson said there was “…no evidence anywhere that he ever confessed.”
• Police incompetence suggests that not even notes were made.

The crimes stopped after his arrest:

• No they didn’t.
• The only difference was media reporting and public perception because of it.

---

That is not an exhaustive list, but it is an “exhausted me”, so that’s all I can think of for now.  Many more instances can be used, but those are probably the easiest to fire off, although there is so much more to the case than all of the above.

 Again, I am not advocating for you to get yourselves into arguments with people who haven’t researched the case properly, if at all.  However, in response to people asking us how to help, we thought a bullet point list might be helpful to some of you.

---