Expendable For A Cause.

If you look at Richard Ramirez’s 2008 appeal petition, you will see find counts related to someone called Thomas Sandoval in the original set of charges. Count 7 and Count 8 pertain to an attack on a child. The penal codes are as follows: 459 is burglary, 207(a) is kidnapping, 261(2) is forcible rape and 288(b) is lewd acts with a child.

The child was female; Thomas Sandoval is likely her father representing her. Detective Gil Carrillo has named the victim on podcasts but it won’t be revealed here because she has never come forward.

Halpin skipped Sandoval, going straight to counts 12, 13 and 14 – the Zazzara case – because the Sandovals were not available. Halpin claimed to have warned the Hernandezes already, and berated them for being unprepared for Zazzara. However, Daniel Hernandez said it was not formally on the record. Halpin then makes the excuse that court was adjourned before he had the chance, and that he had told them another way.

“I tried to put it on the record and the court had already adjourned.”

– Halpin’s excuse.

The cases were supposed to be tried chronologically. The Hernandezes complained that Halpin’s changes violated their client’s rights. Daniel Hernandez claimed that Halpin only told the clerk that they were skipping Sandoval, not the judge.

This wasn’t the first time Halpin had done this – he skipped witnesses on the Vincow case and went straight into Okazaki and Hernandez leaving the defence unprepared.

Halpin then became personal. This was when he called the Hernandezes clowns.

And Judge Nelson threatened to have him held for contempt of court, but the defence’s motion to have more time to prepare for Zazzara was denied.

Considering the only physical evidence the prosecutor had for this Sandoval abduction was a shoeprint at a construction site in Glendale, it’s not surprising that the charge was eventually dropped. The defence team could easily demolish the girl’s eyewitness identification. Children were coached at the line-up and the crime reports would undoubtedly give a description that didn’t match Ramirez. It makes the story about dropping the cases to spare the children reliving their ordeal in a courtroom seem like another overdramatization – weaker cases are often dropped because they can damage the credibility of others.

And as we’ve said many times, if Richard Ramirez truly was the suspect in these cases, why did the newspapers tell the public to be on the lookout for a blonde man of medium build and height?

On documentaries (one being the Netflix series), Carrillo and Frank Salerno explained that the child cases were dropped because they, and Halpin, thought it would be cruel to put the children on the witness stand. One of them described an emotional moment out of the courtroom where they made this agreement. Given the lack of evidence and Halpin’s stalling on bringing the Sandovals to the preliminary hearing, it makes this story sound like an invention. The truth is that these child cases would have collapsed under scrutiny and undermined the rest.

Dates

Another strange discrepancy is the date. This article says the abduction occurred on 20^th March 1985. But the charges list says 17^th March – the same night as the Dayle Okazaki and Tsai Lian Yu murders, which were themselves separate incidents, four miles apart. The child was abducted from Eagle Rock (some articles say Glassell Park), Los Angeles and found in Glendale at 03:00.

If this 17^th March date isn’t just an error – and legal documents shouldn’t have glaring errors like this – are we expected to believe Ramirez was rampaging around three locations all on the same night? That seems preposterous.

Another curiosity is Carrillo’s constant reference to a child in Pico Rivera whose details seem to match the Sandoval child. However, Pico Rivera is a considerable distance from Eagle Rock. It could be a simple mistake, or it could refer to another child entirely. However, no newspapers report on a girl being kidnapped in Pico Rivera, only Montebello, Eagle Rock and then a boy was snatched in Monterey Park. Later abductions or attempts occurred in Rosemead, Highland Park (allegedly) and Arcadia (Anastasia from the Netflix documentary).

Incidentally, Ramirez was never charged with most of these child cases. Aside from the Sandoval child, the list of counts only contains that of Anastasia (counts 31 to 36), who is not named (it says “victim not alleged”). We can say her name because she has chosen to go public with her story – and you can read about that case here.

One final thing: you might have noticed that there are two 459 burglary codes with Thomas Sandoval being named twice. This is because it was believed that Ramirez had burglarized some of the abductee’s homes either before or during the abduction. This was also the accusation for the uncharged Monterey Park case. However, Halpin had no evidence to present for the Count 7 burglary at all, and skipped to Count 8. Why was Ramirez charged with robbing the Sandovals with no evidence?

In conclusion, there was no evidence except the circumstantial Avia shoeprint at a construction site that has no forensic link to Ramirez or even the child – the Avia impression could have come from a builder or, frankly, anyone. And now we know that Philip Halpin had no intention of presenting further evidence. He clearly hadn’t even told the family that they might be needed in court – they were out of state – and one could speculate he skipped their case to trip up the defence by moving onto Zazzara when they were unprepared. It is difficult to believe there was ever any intention of prosecuting Ramirez for the child abductions.