Expendable For A Cause.

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

Now available, the book: The Appeal of the Night Stalker: The Railroading of Richard Ramirez.

Click here for both the ebook and the paperback.

Welcome to our blog.

This analysis examines the life and trial of Richard Ramirez, also known as The Night Stalker. Our research draws upon a wide range of materials, including evidentiary documentation, eyewitness accounts, crime reports, federal court petitions, expert testimony, medical records, psychiatric evaluations, and other relevant sources as deemed appropriate.

For the first time, this case has been thoroughly deconstructed and re-examined. With authorised access to the Los Angeles case files, our team incorporated these findings to present a comprehensive overview of the case.

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.

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.

Demonised, sexualised and monetised.

After all, we are all expendable for a cause.

LOOSE ENDS

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 114 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 ~
LOOSE ENDS

Unleashing the Secrets Within

The Archives

As many of you know, our unrelenting pursuit of the truth in the case of The People of California v. Richard Ramirez led us to the Los Angeles Archives and Records Center (ARC) last October, where we discovered numerous legal documents have been kept hidden deep within the Archives for decades. There are at least nine volumes of files containing hundreds of pages of trial documents, with many more reportedly on microfilm. During our visit, we were allowed to view and make copies of six volumes of trial documents, but only after the staff removed anything they deemed inaccessible, which was quite a bit of material. One might imagine that obtaining these documents, which are indeed public records, would be a simple endeavor. Yet, as with many facets of the Ramirez case, simplicity remains a rare and elusive quality. Nevertheless, we were not content with only having access to 6 of the 9 files, so we mailed a request for copies of volumes 4, 5, and 6, the files that we couldn’t examine while at the ARC due to time constraints. Two months later, we received a notification stating that our check was insufficient to cover the extensive number of copies. We were informed that we needed to submit a new request with additional funds. We promptly did so.

Delay Tactics

Another three months passed without any updates, so I contacted the ARC. I was assured that they were actively working on the request and that the large number of documents was the reason for the delay and would take additional time to process. Finally, a few weeks later, I checked my mailbox and noted a somewhat large envelope from the ARC. Although the envelope was large, I immediately realized it contained very few documents. Upon opening it, I felt a surge of annoyance and frustration. What they sent mainly consisted of copies of the trial minutes—essentially a list of who was present in court that day and notes about continuances-the information is so sparse it hardly scratches the surface of what’s likely in the files.

After gathering my composure, I called the ARC to speak with the person who handled my request. For the sake of anonymity, let’s call her “Sandy.” When Sandy answered, she mentioned that she had sent all the information that was publicly available and had even had to redact the juror names from some of the documents she had sent. I replied, “No, Sandy, you didn’t need to redact the juror names, as those have been public record since the trial concluded in 1989.” I wondered what other information Sandy might have withheld due to her lack of understanding about what constitutes a public record. I then asked to speak with someone I had talked to previously who seemed more knowledgeable; we’ll refer to her as “Lily.” Lily advised me to submit yet another request along with the necessary funds to cover the costs of copies, assuring me she would review the files to see if she could provide anything beyond the trial minutes. Many months have passed, and the waiting continues.

The documents from a trial that took place 36 years ago remain locked away in the confines of the Los Angeles Archives and Records Center. A crucial question demands an answer: why is it so challenging to access the Ramirez trial documents? Are the files deliberately being suppressed from the public? Considering what we encountered during our visit to the archives and the difficulties we are having in obtaining the 3 remaining volumes, there appears to be a concerted effort to keep these files hidden from the public. Has a notorious detective, renowned for weaving deception and misinformation around the Ramirez case, taken steps to ensure these records remain nearly impossible to obtain?

California Public Records

The California Public Records Act, the state equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act, mandates the public disclosure of government records. This law is supposed to ensure citizens can access information about government actions, promoting transparency and accountability. While it applies to all state and local agencies, certain exemptions exist to safeguard privacy and ensure safety. Records excluded from disclosure include attorney-client communications, ongoing investigations or litigation documents, and certain law enforcement records. An agency must provide a valid justification for withholding a record and demonstrate that not disclosing it serves the public interest.

It’s important to note that violating the California Public Records Act is technically considered a misdemeanor, and individuals have the right to file a complaint against agencies that unjustly deny access to public records. Since the Ramirez files are no longer part of any ongoing investigation or litigation, these records should be available to the public, with some minor redactions to protect personal information such as addresses and phone numbers. If we continue to be denied access to the trial documents, pursuing legal recourse may be a necessary strategy. The truth has been concealed for far too long.

Attempting to access the Ramirez trial documents is reminiscent of a scene from Harry Potter, where characters venture into the depths of Gringotts to retrieve a Horcrux, only to face a fire-breathing dragon and insurmountable obstacles. It seems as if the Ramirez files are ensconced behind an impenetrable wall of bureaucratic barriers and excuses, obstructing our path to uncovering the truth and accessing the information we have a right to. But we will not be deterred. Our determination to acquire the trial documents is unwavering and resolute. We refuse to allow Richard’s story to remain hidden. While it does not equate to justice, we are committed to rewriting the narrative based on material facts and evidence, allowing the truth to shine through. In doing so, the authentic story of Richard Ramirez will finally be told.

*I apologize to anyone who does not understand the Harry Potter reference*

KayCee
SNARK

Richard Ramirez Tour Fail

I was in the middle of writing a novel – one that will be based on the Ramirez cases. Then I became distracted and went on YouTube as we do when we’re procrastinating. There, I found this mess of a Richard Ramirez location “tour”, starting at victim Jennie Vincow’s house. These two YouTubers have made four Richard Ramirez videos (including two Gil Carrillo interviews to add to the hundred that already exist). Judging how bad this is, I won’t be watching the others – not that I can take any more Carrillo Logic.

One says, “Literally, we’re walking the steps of Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker!” – as they walk towards some random house.

Straight off, that isn’t an apartment, and neither is it the Vincow residence. Jennie’s son Jack lived above her in their apartment building. This is the real location.

Initially, I thought they had made the simple mistake of going to the wrong address on Chapman Street. This is because there is a typo in Vincow’s address in Ramirez’s 2008 petition. It incorrectly lists the address as 3300 Chapman Street. It’s actually 3330.

3300 is a one storey property on the same street – but no, they truly have gone to the wrong location! The house behind them isn’t 3300. Its 1436. None of the roads surrounding Chapman have 1400 door numbers. Chapman Street borders Glendale’s Forest Lawn cemetery and a wall runs the length of the opposite side of the street. These men are on a road with houses on both sides. After some detective work, the street in their video turned out to be North Avenue 46, two miles away from the real location. Luckily, several people are correcting the creators but with no response.

These guys also claim that a dog walker approached them and told them a murder occurred there, so she’s obviously heard some misinformation too. Where is it coming from? It seems there are a lot of people in Los Angeles who claim dubious sightings or connections to the case. It’s ridiculous enough that it will be the subject of a future post.

Next, they headed to the Greyhound Bus Terminal and arrived at the wrong one. The original terminal where Richard Ramirez and ‘friends’ hung out was on 6th Street and S. Los Angeles Street. It closed as a transport hub in 1991 and the building is now occupied by shops. The one they’re at is on E. 7th Street, more than a mile away.

“George, turn the camera! This is where he would’ve come in”… the camera pans onto Decatur Street. They acknowledge that it’s no longer a functioning bus depot but are oblivious to the fact it’s not the same place at all.

Decatur Street

The bus station on 7th Street

This is the original one, on 6^thand S Los Angeles Streets, downtown.

Below, in its former life, back in 1970.

After this, they visit the former location of “Mike’s Liquor Store” just off 8th Street. But it looks like an old textile factory and not somewhere that ever had shops in 40 years ago.

Just no.

The video then shows an old photo of E. Cesar E Chavez Avenue which is nowhere near 8th Street, making it even more confusing.

Richard going there on foot after leaving the non-existent 7th Street bus terminal makes no logical sense. It’s a 25 minute walk. It doesn’t make sense for him to go there from the real bus terminal either. Who gave them this information?!

Apparently, in the rest of the video, they visit Hubbard Street. I didn’t get that far, but judging by the rest of the video, they could have ended up in Compton or Venice Beach.

Inaccurate Statements Regarding Jennie Vincow’s Murder.

They give the wrong date and state that Jennie Vincow’s death heralded the beginning of Richard Ramirez’s “reign of terror” in June 1985. We all know she was killed in June 1984, nine months before other supposed “Night Stalker attacks”.

At around 04:30, they say Vincow’s body was decomposing for four days in a heatwave before discovery, when we know that she was found either the next morning or the same day by her son (there was confusion over the lividity of the body). They also claim Ramirez had sex with her corpse, despite being corrected by Gil Carrillo in their other podcast. Even he tells the truth sometimes. Ramirez was never charged with raping Vincow, nor was there evidence of necrophilic acts.

At around 06:15, they incorrectly state that this murder took place just before Gil Carrillo and Frank Salerno became partners because Carrillo connected Vincow to the others. Again, this is badly wrong. Chapman Street is in Los Angeles and therefore was investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department. Gil Carrillo was with the Sheriff’s Department, so they had nothing to do with the Vincow investigation – the officer dealing with the case was Detective Jesse Castillo. It was connected to the crimes after Ramirez was arrested.

They claim (at about 6:46) that Vincow was the first crime scene where Avia shoeprints were found, but our readers will know that was the Zazzara scene nine months later. Carrillo and Salerno were not on that case either.

It’s really difficult to see so much disinformation on the internet, with people flocking to watch this stuff and soaking up lies, taking things at face value and sharing it. It’s also ghoulish to be standing outside someone’s house yelling into a bad quality microphone about all the blood and gore at a crime scene. The way they speak is so unprofessional, sensationalist and worst of all false.
IT’S RELEVANT

This Is Good..

In fact, it’s excellent.

This is a quick note from me.
I wanted to bring this new YouTube channel to your attention, as some of you may not have seen it. @SataysandMash – we are not affiliated with them, but they share the material with our knowledge and permission, crediting and promoting our work in their videos.

Our greatest aim is to get the information out there through this blog (where it all started) and, of course, the book. However, we freely acknowledge that for some people, having a bite-size explanation in a video format might suit them better.
There is so much disinformation about the case, along with many fangirl edits, that we rarely come across something worth sharing with you.

This is their latest video about the Abowath Incident. If you haven’t seen it already, go and have a look; there are others on there, too. It will be time well spent.

Click HERE to watch it in full.

In case you missed it, here’s a link to the book page.

I read a lot and write a bi
~ Jay ~
LOOSE ENDS

The Ex Parte Order

We found some interesting items when we accessed the case files during our stay in Los Angeles.

Because of that, we’ve been able to add more insight into the work already done, whether that is regarding the time Maria Hernandez really saw her attacker (spoiler: it wasn’t eight seconds, it was two) or the statement of facts showing how Halpin defied the court and refused to bring in Robert Christansen to be cross-examined over his ballistics report; the report that did not match the story the prosecutor was relaying. We also discovered additional information regarding Tsai-Lian Yu and Jennie Vincow and have posted about those.

Other things we found were, for want of a better word, “incidentals”, little snippets of information that we hadn’t seen before as they weren’t in the public arena, and apart from giving some insight into the years between arrest and trial, they don’t actually add anything of consequence to the case itself. They pique our interest, nothing more. One such item was the letter written by Richard to Judge Morrow, sellotaped to a sheet of paper and filed away, forgotten for years.

Here is another: an ex parte order per Judge Morrow that we thought might interest you, too. At first glance, we assumed it was a visiting order like any other. We don’t know why the post-it note is on it or why Judge Morrow wanted it “kept separate from the others” but that flash of yellow amongst the sheaf of documents made us look a little closer.

Papers and Post-it Notes

“Court orders that witnesses Noemi Navarrete and Rosario Flores may visit with the defendant on 11-3-86 in the company of defense counsel Arturo Hernandez and Danilo Hernandez in the attorney visiting room at the Los Angeles County Jail”. (spelling discrepancies are within the document)

There are a few reasons why this is particularly interesting. The court order refers to both Nohemi, whom Richard had dated before he left for California, and Rosa as witnesses. This led us to think that perhaps they were going to be called as character witnesses, as we know Rosa was subpoenaed, leaving the possibility that Nohemi had been as well. Neither were called to trial to testify on Richard’s behalf.

The meeting took place in the attorneys visiting room, where they would have privacy and wouldn’t have to converse with a sheet of plexiglass between them via telephone. It also shows us that Nohemi was visiting Richard just over a year after his arrest and her news interview in which she told reporters that she did not believe that Richard was the Night Stalker.

El Paso Herald Post, sorry it’s blurry.

Another intriguing matter is the order itself. As I understand it, ex parte orders are issued without notifying the opposing party and are issued in emergencies where time is of the essence. Typically issued in family situations where there might be a danger, threats of harassment, and in parental cases if a child might be in a precarious situation. They may also be issued in cases of mental health and can be filed if it is thought that someone may require a medical evaluation. Did Rosa have concerns about her brother’s state of mind? If so, she was right, although that doesn’t explain Nohemi’s presence.

Unfortunately, beyond that basic description, I don’t know any more about ex parte orders (other than what an internet search can tell me) or why this one was issued in Richard’s case; it is just another frustrating question that we don’t have the answer to, but nonetheless, I thought that you all might be curious to see it.

I read a lot and write a bit.
~ Jay ~
POOR EVIDENCE

Mark the Card With His Number

Richard with Arturo Hernandez, pictured during the preliminary hearing.

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?

“Mark the card with his number”. These words are spoken at the exact moment the fingers are held up to the audience, as the officer walks in front, making sure he is seen.

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!)

Judith Crawford’s hurried scrawl we found in the case files.

“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.

Statement of facts

Statement of facts

Motion denied

“…witnesses were taken to the lineup where news reporters and news camera crews were gathered..”

“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..“

“The way they did it is through television, news media, description by the radio stations and all possible means of mass media. They were going into the person’s homes and telling them and showing..”

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.

Statement of facts: we were intrigued by the pencil markings, probably made by post-conviction lawyers.

The final denial of the motion, signed by Halpin, on behalf of DA Ira Reiner.

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

“I read a lot and write a bit”
~ Jay ~