Expendable For A Cause.

The Railroading Of Richard Ramírez

“The world has been fed many lies about me..”

Richard Ramírez

Coming soon, our book – The Appeal of the Night Stalker: The Railroading of Richard Ramirez.

Welcome to our blog.

Here we will be examining the life and trial of Richard Ramírez, aka The Night Stalker. The evidence, eyewitness testimonies, crime reports, Federal Court petitions, expert witness statements, medical history, psychiatric reports and anything else we deem appropriate. This is the first time this case has been thoroughly deconstructed using original source material.

Demonised, sexualised and monetised.

After all, we are all expendable for a cause.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus

The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you should have the body”—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person’s detention can be assessed. In United States law, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called “the Great Writ,” and it is not about a person’s guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus—”relief” in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained or falsified evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impanelled.

All of those things can be seen within this writ.

Let’s be clear, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not a given right, unlike review on direct appeal, it is not automatic.

What happened was a violation of constitutional rights, under the 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Richard Ramírez in court.

Evil has always existed. The perfect world most people seek shall never come to pass and it’s gonna get worse.

Richard Ramírez

  • You, the Jury

    Questioning

    The word “occult” comes from the Latin “occultus”. Ironically, the trial of an infamous occultist and Satanist is the epitome of the meaning of the word itself: clandestine, secret; hidden. 

    We’ve written many words; a story needed to be told, and we created this place to enable us to do just that.
    Here, in this space, we intended to present the defence omitted at Richard Ramirez’s trial in violation of his constitutional rights. Our investigations have taken us down roads we’d rather not travel along, but as we did so, we realised that there was so much hidden we could search for a lifetime and still not see the end of it. Once we’d started, there was no turning back; we followed wherever it led.

    This was never about proving innocence; that was never the intent or purpose. We wanted to begin a dialogue, allowing this information to be freely discussed and for us to verbalise the rarely asked questions. We asked, and we’re still asking. 

    We can’t tell you, the reader, what to think; you must come to your own conclusions, as we did.

    And so

    We’ve said what we came here to say; with 88 articles and supporting documents, we’ve said as much as we can at this point.
    This blog will stand as a record of that, and although we will still be here, we intend to only update if we find new information, if we suddenly remember something we haven’t previously covered, or to “tidy up” existing articles and examine any new claims (or expose outrageous lies) that come to light. The site will be maintained, and we’ll be around to answer any comments or questions.

    What Next?

    We will focus on the book being worked on; we’ve also been invited to participate in a podcast. When we have dates for those, we’ll update you.

    The defence rests? Somehow, I sincerely doubt that; ultimately, we’re all “expendable for a cause”. 

    ~ J, V and K ~

  • Richard Ramirez’s Appeals

    Subscribe to continue reading

    Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

  • Reasonable Fucking Doubt!

    Well, it’s enough to make you swear.

    Yesterday, 28th Feb 2024, the State of Texas executed a man called Ivan Cantu by lethal injection; perhaps you’ve heard of his case, perhaps not. Why am I mentioning him on a blog demonstrating Ramirez’s unfair trial? Because of reasonable doubt. Reasonable fucking doubt.

    Taken at face value, the cases are very different; Cantu was convicted of the double murder of his cousin, James Mosqueda and his fiancée, Amy Kitchen, in Dallas in 2000. Richard Ramirez was convicted of serial murder and rape. The similarities between them lie in their defence rather than their alleged crimes; both were Hispanic, neither was given due process and the right to a fair trial, and each of them received the death penalty.
    Like Ramirez before him, Cantu was saddled with a lawyer who did not bring forward defence witnesses, a lawyer who failed to investigate the charges against him or develop a defence strategy. No expert defence witnesses were brought in to testify. Star witnesses for the prosecution committed perjury, and the jury was not given exculpatory evidence to consider.

    There is a podcast dedicated to Cantu’s case, “Cousins by Blood”, created by Private Investigator Matt Duff (I will link it at the end). So, I need not go over the highly complicated case, but I urge you to listen to it as he brings forward the evidence omitted in court.

    In this podcast, the star witness recants and admits he and his sister (Ivan’s ex-girlfriend) lied to the police and in court. The lead detective deliberately hid exculpatory evidence, evidence which has now come to light. That’s a Brady violation, yet this detective said he didn’t even know what “Brady” means. He doesn’t know. If I know, why doesn’t he? The clothes Ivan was supposed to have worn that night did not show any of his DNA and were much too large for him. The jury foreman has spoken out, saying they were not given all the evidence to deliberate. He requested the document they had to sign, saying they agreed with the punishment, to be returned to him; he has changed his mind, as have others. The list goes on.

    Ivan’s case garnered support from celebrities like Kim Kardashian, Martin Sheen and Susan Sarandon. Over 140,000 signatures were collected on a petition sent to Collin County Court. Nothing worked. Ivan was merely asking for his right to a fair trial; he was not begging for his life. He wanted justice and was given none, in the same way Ramirez was denied it.

    We are taught to put our trust in the law and in justice, and today, I have seen people genuinely shocked about Ivan Cantu’s execution, as if they had never considered that justice is not what it seems. The 6th Amendment tells us that every accused man must have fair representation, but just because the person standing up with a defendant is a lawyer, that’s not enough to satisfy the Constitution; the lawyer is required to defend. So why does this keep happening?

    For a country that vigorously defends the 2nd Amendment, America doesn’t seem so bothered about the 6th.

    Yesterday, I read comments from someone who had practised law for 16 years. Their opinion (I will paraphrase) was that the Public Defenders are there mainly to drive a plea bargain, not to defend. It’s ticking boxes, not delivering justice. Richard Ramirez was correct in his assessment of that.


    Some people think we’re here crying about “innocence”; we are not. We are here to show how badly a case was handled from start to finish; we are explaining that there was a case for reasonable doubt. If “innocence” is what you see when reading what we’ve said, rather than whine about it on TikTok or attack people who support us, ask yourself why. (Hybristophilia is not a good look, by the way).

    Meanwhile, the Ramirez case is still used for fame and money, using the tragic events as entertainment. It really is enough to make you swear.

    My sympathy goes out to all the victims in these cases, the ones who don’t get justice and to the accused, who are not allowed to defend themselves when reasonable doubt exists.

    LISTEN TO THE “COUSINS BY BLOOD” PODCAST HERE

    Ivan Cantu, from the Cousins by Blood podcast.

    “I read a lot and write a bit”

    ~ Jay ~

  • ODD ONE OUT

    We’re back…

    The Night Stalker cases should have been split into separate trials to prevent a joinder or “spill-over” where evidence from another case is used to suggest a connection to another. There are several ways to divide the cases. This post will focus on those where Ramirez was prosecuted for rape-burglaries: Kyle, Dickman, Khovananth and Abowath.

    It is perhaps tempting to assume all four of these attacks were committed by the same man, by the nature of the crime and because all four women described a slim/thin man with curly or wavy hair. But is it possible that they were two, three or even four different men?

    GEOGRAPHY

    Location is important when looking for serial killer patterns. In his declaration, forensic psychologist Steve Strong noted that some attacks were not in Los Angeles County and there was no pattern to the locations. Of these four, two were in Los Angeles city, and two were in Los Angeles County.

    They are also very different places: Kyle’s home on N. Avon St, Burbank is a middle-class but densely populated area with larger houses. The Khovananth home on Schoenborn St, Sun Valley is also densely populated, but is less tree-lined and attractive. To the east lies a huge power station and gas works. Similarly, Dickman’s house in Monterey Park is close to land owned by San Gabriel electricity* that is full of pylons. Diamond Bar is very suburban and middle class with houses spaced further apart, hills and more green spaces. If this was the same rapist, he was unbothered by the different types of location and confident of escaping different types of homes: Kyle’s house was two storeys high, more difficult to escape than the other scenes, all bungalows.

    As for their descriptions of his appearance, they might have attributes in common, but there was always an odd one out. It is commonly reported that the Night Stalker was famous for his bad teeth and halitosis, but what did these rape survivors say about that?

    TEETH

    1. Kyle – straight, white, excessive gums
    2. Dickman – no mention – despite the Night Stalker’s teeth being so ‘distinctive’.
    3. Khovananth – stained with gaps, particularly between the front two. This is close to Richard Ramirez’s teeth at that time.
    4. Abowath – wide front teeth, no gaps, but she later changed her description to “crooked and stained” and “something strange about his teeth.”

    So, that leads you to think that at two of them definitely saw the same man – the two whose crimes were almost identical. Khovananth and Abowath both lost their husbands to close-range gunshot wounds. This brings us to the hair, commonly reported as “dishevelled.” But this is what they really said.

    HAIR

    1. Kyle – Black, wavy and side-parted, shiny and clean. He had bangs/a fringe swept to one side.
    2. Dickman – curly, dark brown.
    3. Khovananth – curly, brown.
    4. Abowath – curly, blonde or light brown.

    There we have three different hair colours, a discrepancy excused by the poor light quality, although Dickman and Abowath said they saw him standing under the bathroom light and it was daylight by the end of the Khovananth attack. They had a clear view of the attacker’s hair.

    EYES

    1. Kyle – brown.
    2. Dickman – not mentioned.
    3. Khovananth – brown.
    4. Abowath – not mentioned.

    Ramirez had very dark eyes; they look almost black, but nobody mentioned that. He also had very distinctive and unusual arched eyebrows – at a time when he had short hair, and they should have been visible. Yet none of them mentioned anything about his eye area. The Khovananth composite shows bulging eyes, very different to Ramirez’s.

    HEIGHT

    1. Kyle – 5’10” – 6’
    2. Dickman – 5’8” – 5’9” changed in court to 6’ – 6’1”
    3. Khovananth – 6’
    4. Abowath – 6’2 – 6’4”

    Regarding the height, Dickman’s has the biggest discrepancy. He was fairly short and she had said this to three separate officers, yet in court, insisted that they all lied and the man was tall. Kyle was unsure, putting him at a tall average, until changing her mind in August and asserting that he was six feet.

    ETHNICITY

    1. Kyle – tanned, Latino.
    2. Dickman – Caucasian.
    3. Khovananth – dark skinned “like a Mexican” but changed to light-skinned with a tan.
    4. Abowath – Caucasian at first, but later she insisted he was yellowish in complexion and had “Latin features”.

    So, again, they all interpret him differently. Abowath’s is strange. While it is entirely possible for Latinos to be blonde, why would she describe a light-haired man, yet later claim he looked “latin.” Light hair is not what one immediately associates with being Hispanic – and when identifying strangers, people tend to rely on stereotypes.

    VOICE/ACCENT

    1. Kyle – ‘Spanish’ sounding.
    2. Dickman – no mention.
    3. Khovananth – undeniable accent, sounded uneducated.
    4. Abowath – no accent, standard American?

    Again, the accents make it seem like two were Latino and two were Caucasian.

    ESTIMATED AGE

    • Kyle – 20
    • Dickman – 27
    • Khovananth – 30-35
    • Abowath – 25-30

    While it can be difficult to judge age in the dark, when terrified, there is an age range of fifteen years here.

    SEXUAL ASSAULT KIT

    1. Kyle – no result presented at trial.
    2. Dickman – no result presented at trial.
    3. Khovananth – no result presented at trial.
    4. Abowath – semen inconsistent with Richard Ramirez’s blood type.

    Ramirez should not have been prosecuted for Abowath at all – the wrong description and not his semen. Inez Erickson (from the Orange County incident) should also be mentioned here. While she could not identify the man, he said the same things about Satan as in the Abowath case, which suggests that was the same person. If it was, then the semen there would surely not match Ramirez. The two locations, while 35 miles apart, are connected by the same stretches of freeway – the California Highway 57 and the Interstate 5.

    The only thing these attackers have in common is being thin with curly or wavy hair. For all the other features, there is one that doesn’t quite match Ramirez casting doubt over who really committed the crimes. Readers, what is your opinion?

    -VenningB-

  • San Quentin (part 2)

    Life on the row

    Death row prisoners are stripped of nearly every freedom while waiting to die. Life is a bleak existence marked by isolation, exclusion from educational and employment programs, restricted visitation, and the ever-looming possibility of execution.

    Solitary Confinement: Richard spent most of his time alone in a small cell, with limited social interaction and exposure to sunlight, subjected to much more deprivation and harsher conditions than general population inmates.

    Limited Time Outside Cells: Richard spent more than 20 hours a day in his cell, only allowed to shower a few times a week, with limited access to exercise and visitations.

    Frequent Checks: In California, death row inmates are checked on average 48 times a day. This means Richard had to go through these checks constantly. The checks involve loud noises from keys, voices, and lights, making it hard to sleep without interruption, leading to severe sleep deprivation. Richard spent 24 years on death row (except for the 3 years in the San Francisco County Jail). Imagine how it would feel to be sleep-deprived for over 20 years.

    Declining Mental Health: The combination of isolation, limited sunlight, and severe restrictions can lead to a condition known as “death row syndrome.” While it appears Richard had some physical and mental health issues before he was sent to prison, the conditions on death row seem to have exacerbated his illnesses.

    What is death row syndrome? Being confined to death row for an extended period of time can cause deteriorating physical health, agitation, delusions, suicidal tendencies, paranoia, depression, and anxiety. Prisoners wait decades for execution and are subjected to prolonged isolation, which many legal experts have concluded is comparable to torture.

    From Philip Carlo’s “The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez“

    “They feed us in our cages.“

    Every death row inmate at San Quentin falls into one of two categories: grade A or grade B. Grade A comprises individuals who mainly abide by prison rules, while grade B includes those who have violated rules, been violent in prison, or have gang affiliations. Those considered “grade B” spend an indefinite period in the Adjustment Center. Any mail sent to prisoners is meticulously examined before being delivered. From the confines of their cells, prisoners have a view of black bars, a sheet of perforated metal, a railing, and a daunting forty feet of open space before reaching a wall of windows. The cells in East Block measure a mere 48 square feet and stand at a height of seven feet, seven inches – about the size of a walk-in closet. Adjacent to some of the cell doors are shoulder-high, A-frame metal structures with attached telephones. Sam Robinson, San Quentin’s Public Relations Officer, explained their purpose, “Because these guys can’t exit their cells freely, we actually have a phone apparatus on wheels, as we say, and we push it in front of the individual cell. We leave his food port open, and he is allowed to extend his hand out, grab the receiver, and place a call.” Walking death row at San Quentin State Prison

    An inmate making a phone call from a cell in East Block (Reuters photography)

    The harsh reality Richard faced on death row is far worse than any words can convey. Can you envision this being your life every single day, year after year, decade after decade.

    From Carlo’s “The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez“

    Mental Health

    Mental health issues significantly impact death-penalty cases. Individuals with mental illness are more vulnerable to police pressure, less able to assist their attorneys meaningfully, and are typically poor witnesses. Living conditions on death row are deliberately inhospitable, based on the presumption that those subjected to them are not only the most serious offenders but also predatory individuals who pose a continuing danger to others. The American Psychological Association states that the narrative about the danger posed by death row prisoners is unsupported by evidence. However, the evidence demonstrates that a disproportionate number of individuals on death row experience serious mental health disorders that are predictably worsened by the onerous conditions of confinement.

    “The question we need to ask about the death penalty in America is not whether someone deserves to die for a crime. The question is whether we deserve to kill.“ Bryan Stevenson, founder of Equal Justice Initiative

    The Death Penalty in America

    The United States is the only Western industrialized nation that practices capital punishment, putting it in the company of notorious dictators in countries such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, China, and Saudi Arabia. The American death penalty system is marred by bias, wrongful convictions, unfair application, and dependence on the defendant’s financial resources and legal representation. It is disproportionately imposed on the poor, uneducated, and people of color. Moreover, it does not effectively deter violent crime, fails to enhance public safety, and is significantly costlier than a life imprisonment without parole sentence. Ultimately, it favors the wealthy and guilty over the poor and innocent.

    One in ten prisoners executed in the United States are considered “volunteers,” meaning they have waived key trial or appeal rights to facilitate their execution. This decision is often driven by the appalling conditions they are subjected to on death row for many years before their sentence is carried out.

    Since 1978: 1,582 individuals have been executed, while 181 have died from non-execution-related deaths. Richard’s death is included in the non-execution related numbers, as he died from an illness while on death row. Fifteen individuals have had their death sentences carried out. The state of California has carried out 13 of those 15 executions.

    California Death Penalty

    As of January 2023, 2,463 prisoners were on death row in the United States, with 665 of those being in California. California’s death row is the largest in the Western Hemisphere. An estimate from The National Academy of Sciences concluded that at least four percent of individuals on death row are innocent. California’s death row population is representative of the inherent racism in capital punishment, with Latinos comprising 26% of death row prisoners and 39% of the state’s population.

    Does anyone want to guess which county has sentenced the most people to death? That’s right, Los Angeles! Los Angeles County also has the highest number of exoneration cases among all California counties.

    • Five prisoners have been found innocent and released from San Quentin’s death row, the most recent in April 2018, when Vicente Benavides was released after 25 years.
    • East Block was the home of California’s only death row until it was shut down in early 2023. Currently there is a moratorium on the death penalty in California, but it is still legal.
    A drawing by Richard marking the days he had been on death row (2013).

    Wrongful Convictions

    According to The Innocence Project, more than 3,000 people have been wrongly convicted since 1989, highlighting significant flaws in the capital punishment system. Since 1973, 196 individuals have been exonerated from death row in the U.S., yet this doesn’t fully depict the impact the death penalty has on wrongful convictions. The threat of the death penalty leads innocent individuals to plead guilty. It elicits false testimony, disproportionately affecting Black and Latino individuals, with documented law enforcement misconduct in two-thirds of Latino exoneration cases.

    Leading causes of wrongful convictions:

    1. Eyewitness misidentification
    2. False and coerced confessions
    3. Law enforcement misconduct
    4. Inadequate legal defense
    5. False accusations or perjury by witnesses
    6. False or misleading forensic evidence

    Multiple contributing factors of wrongful convictions were present in Richard’s case: (This is by no means an exhaustive list of the issues that contributed to Richard’s conviction)

    • Unreliable eyewitness identification– eyewitness identification weighed heavily in convicting Richard. Yet, EVERY single witness gave an initial description that did not match Richard.
    • Perjury-Felipe Solano lied during his testimony by stating he only bought stolen goods from Richard.
    • Inadequate legal defense-the wholly inept duo, Arturo and Daniel Hernandez, represented Richard, if one can call it that. They conceded much of the forensic evidence presented by the prosecution and didn’t bother with having most of the evidence tested. I suppose that would have required too much actual “lawyering.”
    • False and misleading forensic evidence- 
      • Shoe Prints-so called shoe print expert Gerald Burke presented misleading and incorrect information regarding the Avia shoe prints. The evidence did not support Burke’s conclusions; Avia shoes were not a rare commodity in the Los Angeles area. 
      •  Fingerprints-fingerprint evidence consisted of 1 partial fingerprint and 1 palm print. Both are considered by many in the legal field to be “junk science.”
      • Ballistics – the prosecution presented faulty, misleading ballistics evidence.
    • Serological testing-None of the blood evidence from the crime scenes was Richard’s. PGM markers also revealed that Richard’s semen was not present at any crime scene. Despite these facts, the forensic specialist downplayed the results.
    • Presumption of guilt-A high-profile case such as Richard’s was burdened by a presumption of guilt that shifted the burden of proof to the defense. Richard’s case was “guilty until proven innocent”, instead of “innocent until proven guilty.”
    • Involuntary/Coerced statements– Involuntary statements have a high risk of a lack of reliability and accuracy and violate due process. Allegedly, Richard made incriminating statements on the ride to Hollenbeck police station and once he arrived there. The statements were made before Richard was read his “Miranda” rights and considered involuntary and inadmissible.
    • Illegal seizure of evidence – based on Richard’s alleged statements, law enforcement used “probable cause” to search him physically, retrieve items from a storage locker at a Greyhound bus station, and the Pontiac vehicle. Richard was physically searched, his wallet confiscated, and the locker content seized before a search warrant was issued. The search warrant was obtained after the fact, with Richard’s alleged statements used as a means to justify it.
    • Immunity from prosecution–several individuals were given immunity from prosecution for testifying against Richard, including Jesse Perez, Felipe Solano, Donna Myers and Earl Gregg.

    The intense pressure to secure convictions and political motivations for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges can lead to critical legal mistakes that result in wrongful convictions and death sentences. Tom Bradley, mayor of L.A. when Richard was arrested, publicly announced that same day there was no need to have a trial as he was convinced Richard was the so-called Nightstalker. He had also been an LAPD officer and twice ran for governor of California. His views on the death penalty were clear: “To put it neatly and in a few words, I am in favor of the death penalty.” Sheriff Block of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department ran for reelection in 1989. Securing a conviction for the Nightstalker crimes helped him achieve this goal. Advocating for capital punishment helped one-time San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein to get elected and reelected to the Senate. In contrast, former California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird voted to overturn every death penalty case she reviewed. As a result, she was “booted” from the bench when she ran for reelection in 1986.

    Law Enforcement Degeneracy

    Counties, states, and the federal government have varying regulations and procedures regarding the preservation of evidence and access to testing for incarcerated individuals striving to demonstrate their innocence. In many cases, prosecutors refuse to reconsider or reopen cases even when new evidence is presented. There is a lack of accountability for law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges, even if misconduct results in wrongful convictions. Immunity laws shield them from responsibility, and they can’t be held liable for falsifying or withholding evidence, coercing witnesses, presenting false testimony, or introducing illegally seized evidence at trial.

    Official misconduct in Richard’s case (these are only a few examples of the misconduct in Richard’s case-it is not an exhaustive list):

    • Los Angeles prosecutors lost the partial and unidentified fingerprint evidence presented in the Vincow crime. No penalties were imposed.
    • Federal habeas attorneys retained a fingerprint examiner and a forensic shoeprint expert to review evidence presented at Richard’s trial. Both requests were denied.
    • Law enforcement identified potential third-party suspects involved in burglaries and thefts, with motive and opportunity to commit crimes and sell stolen property to Felipe Solano. Yet, the prosecution deceitfully portrayed Felipe Solano as “less than a major receiver of stolen property.”
    • The prosecution falsely told the jury that although Solano was involved in receiving stolen property, the State would have to release Richard if they wanted to prosecute Solano.

    From Carlo’s “The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez”

    *From the statements Richard made to Philip Carlo, he did not appear to have resigned himself to a life on death row. *

    Reconsidering Evidence in the Night Stalker Case

    The evidence implicating Richard in the Night Stalker case does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, causing grave concerns about his convictions. All of the evidence from the Night Stalker case should be submitted for independent forensic laboratory testing. Not to a lab looking to uphold the status quo but to one that operates without any knowledge of the significance of the evidence. This could offer an opportunity for unbiased evaluation, potentially shedding new light on the case. What do we have to lose? Many individuals may have a lot to lose.

    Those who have built their careers on the premise of Richard Ramirez as the Night Stalker and anyone looking to cash in on this “true” crime story, have a vested interest in keeping to the story they’ve told for decades. The potential impact on such individuals is palpable and adds a layer of skepticism to the entire case. The established narrative of Richard’s convictions is not as straightforward as commonly believed, emphasizing the need for a thorough reevaluation. It is time to uncover the real facts and establish the true story. It’s time for a deeper, unbiased investigation.

    San Quentin, I hate every inch of you.
    You cut me and you scarred me through and through
    And I’ll walk out a wiser, weaker man    .
    Mister Congressman, you can’t     understand.

    San Quentin, what good do you think you do?
    Do you think I’ll be different when you’re through?
    You bent my heart and mi    nd, and you warp my soul.
    Your stone walls turn my blood a little     cold.

    San Quentin, may you rot and burn in hell.
    May your walls fall, and may I live to tell?
    May all the world forget you ever stood?
    And may all the world regret you did no good    ?
    San Quentin, I hate every inch of you     (The song “San Quentin” was recorded by singer Johnny Cash in 1969, at San Quentin State Prison).

    Additional Sources:

    2008 Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Richard Ramirez vs Robert Ayers

    The Nightstalker. The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez, Philip Carlo, 1996

    Time on Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center

    California is closing San Quentin’s death row. This is its gruesome history.

    Los Angeles County Sheriffs – Past to Present (laalmanac.com)

    Wrongful Convictions (eji.org)

    The Death Penalty Worldwide – Death Penalty Focus

    Death Penalty (eji.org)

    California Death Penalty Facts – Death Penalty Focus

    https://innocenceproject.org/innocence-and-the-death-penalty/

    KayCee