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, THE LOS ANGELES CRIMES

Predictable

Sex, Satan and Another Cash Grab

Well, that was all rather predictable and disappointing – it was only to be expected. However, as the latest Ramirez documentary, Richard Ramirez – The Night Stalker Tapes, dropped, that familiar feeling of déjà vu crept in. This post will only deal with one small part of it.

Once again, the omnipresent retired Detective-Turned-Actor, Gil Carrillo, was there, with the usual script. Carrillo loves to talk about Maria Hernandez; his focus is always heavily centred on her and the murder of Dayle Okazaki because from there, his serial killer theory was born.
Below is a clip from the latest Peacock TV documentary; in it, Carrillo is talking about Maria Hernandez and how she described her killer. Unfortunately, what he is saying isn’t the truth.

Clipped from the Peacock TV documentary, Richard Ramirez – The Night Stalker Tapes.

“Tell me what he looked like”.
“High cheekbones, narrow jaw, hair was dishevelled. Stained, gapped teeth,” says Carrillo with a flourish.

Maria Hernandez did not describe her attacker and Okazaki’s killer like that. What Maria actually said is well documented, and Carrillo must know that. To bolster this blatant untruth, the documentary then flashed up the police artist sketch created by Somkid Khovanath in July 1985, not the one created by Maria in March of that year.

At this point, one must assume that it was a deliberate move to mislead unless the producers of this documentary couldn’t be bothered to search out the Hernandez composite, although it is not hard to find.

He continues:
“As the case went on, there were several artists’ renditions.” Here, he is correct. See this post for the composite sketches and photofit gallery.

Somkid Khovananth was the first Night Stalker victim to talk about bad teeth. Previously, only Carol Kyle had made dental observations, although Kyle said the teeth that she saw were “straight and white.”

What Did Maria Hernandez Say?

Below is taken from the witness statement of Maria Hernandez and can be found in document 20-3 of the 2008 Habeas Petition:

“Upon turning around she instantly observed a light-skinned male, either Mexican or Caucasian, 5’9″ to 6’1”, thin build, dark hair, wearing a black “Members Only” type jacket, white shirt, and black trousers”. (Document 20-3)

And this is the police sketch she helped to create, complete with a moustache.

The sketch Hernandez helped to create on the 18th March 1985, taken from the 2021 Netflix documentary, Night Stalker: The Hunt for a Serial Killer.

And her lineup card, where she mentions the facial hair.

Although indistinct, it reads, ““He had a little beard and moustache when the crime [illegible] but I do feel it was 2.”

Maria Hernandez never seemed sure of her attacker’s appearance, and she struggled through the in-court identification she gave, admitting that she could not identify him from memory, That’s hardly surprising; four years had elapsed by the time of the trial itself, and she indicated at the preliminary hearing in 1986 that she had only viewed the man who attacked her and murdered her roommate for a mere two seconds.

A court motion we recently unearthed from Volume One of the Ramirez case files.

Detective Carrillo insists that every Night Stalker victim mentioned decaying teeth; he mentions it every time he’s interviewed, which seems to be all the time. This is how misinformation passes into folklore and is seen repeated in every discussion about Richard Ramirez.

Subliminally inserting the Khovananth sketch into a dialogue concerning Maria Hernandez only distracts and confuses. It would be more beneficial to quote what she reported in her witness statement followed by the correct sketch.
Not doing so insults anyone with enough intelligence to search for the facts themselves.

For information on the Murder of Mei Leung, please see THIS POST.

If you would like to learn more about the whole case then why not treat yourself to our book or read through the many articles on this site.

Note: We do not make posts about the current family allegations, we knew of them (as did everyone else) three years ago. Our point of interest has always been the handling of the trial, the investigations and the appeals.

I read a lot and write a bit
~ Jay ~
IT’S RELEVANT, POOR EVIDENCE

Richard Ramirez: False Child Abduction Allegations

After watching Netflix’s Night Stalker: The Hunt for a Serial Killer documentary a few years ago, my co-writer Jay decided to research the abductions. It was surprising to discover old Los Angeles Times articles (from March 1985) that urged the public to watch out for a 5’9” blonde or light brown-haired man of medium build who had snatched or attempted to kidnap children from outside schools. A man fitting a similar description had entered a home and taken another male child. These are the newspaper clippings. The images might appear too small if you’re using a small device.

^{14th March 1985}

The article cuts off but here is the rest from an online copy:

A bedroom abduction happened again just two weeks later on 20th March, this time to a girl in Glassell Park. Other articles say she was from nearby Eagle Rock. She will be referred to as “Girl S.”

As you can see, the suspect does not resemble Richard Ramirez – not the composite sketch nor the drawing by Fernando Ponce (who later drew the infamous Khovananth sketch and also Carol Kyle’s first). Here is a coloured and clearer version of the image:

Blue eyes?

This was the point where Detective Carrillo explained that he felt it resembled the Maria Hernandez sketch so he theorised that the crimes were connected (also to the Tsai-Lian Yu case). This is a matter of debate.

Maria Hernandez’s sketch

By making this child molester into the shooter seen by Maria Hernandez, it looks as if Carrillo discarded what the children described: a blonde/light brown-haired white man. Hernandez said he had dark hair and was possibly slightly tanned.

One can try to argue that the children were mistaken. But the school kidnappings happened in daylight and there was an adult witness. It may be difficult to accept that a detective could either be lying or making mistakes, but not impossible. According to biographer Philip Carlo, Carrillo was so invested in connecting the children to the murders that they were made to view another suspect in an April 1985 line-up.

By late August 1985, the media was reporting that “Girl S” said the Eagle Rock abductor resembled the Night Stalker.

After Ramirez’s capture, on 8^th September, an Orange County Register article claimed that the Montebello child (the 25^th February attack) described a tall, thin man. He was originally described as average height and build. As with the adult victims, the molester is slowly being manipulated into the form of the Night Stalker, although he was always nebulous.

June Abductions

To return to June 1985, there were three child cases. One was a school abduction in Rosemead on 5^th June. The child was unable to give a good description and nothing more was heard about it. Information on the second abduction on 15^th June is difficult to find. The following details can be found in the Affidavit (Document 7.4 of the 2008 appeals documents): an attempted kidnapping was reported on Garvanza Avenue in Highland Park around 3:45pm.

There were no news articles on the incident. Carrillo had been searching through teletypes of other unrelated cases and decided it was Richard Ramirez because he was caught jumping a stop light three miles away on Delevan Drive/York Boulevard. This was the incident where they found his dental appointment card in the car and discovered his alias, Richard Mena.

The third incident on 27^th June involved Anastasia Hronas, who spoke on the Netflix documentary. This is how the incident was described in news articles – he is probably a different kidnapper to the one in February:

^{30th June 1985 in the Arcadia Tribune}

Gil Carrillo recently revealed that Hronas told him her abductor had an “Indian headdress” tattoo on his arm. He said he corrected her that she saw a pentagram, therefore it was Richard Ramirez. This could be interpreted as another instance where he has dismissed what the child described to make it fit with his theories, just as happened with the children who saw the average build blonde man. Children are simply brushed aside as being mistaken – even when they give very important pieces of information like distinctive tattoos.

Hronas also said on the documentary that the man took her to a home with a chain-link fence which contained two dogs, and he put a Madonna record on repeat. These should have been amazing leads, but they were dismissed. Does this sound like Richard Ramirez who was notorious for listening to heavy rock, which the media claims influenced his crime spree? He was homeless and lived in cars but somehow, he had a house and dogs.

After reading both the 2006 Automatic Direct Appeal and the 2008 Federal Habeas Corpus documents, we discovered that both children and adults were encouraged to choose Ramirez at the September 1985 line-up.

Below is an image of Judith Crawford’s notes that we found in the Los Angeles County Hall of Records. If you can read it better than us, please leave it in the comments! It [probably] says from the second paragraph:

“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.”

The girl referenced might be Anastasia, or “Girl S.” See the video below for the deputy telling them who to choose using a hand signal.

The 2008 Federal Habeas Petition revealed that Ramirez was only charged with two child cases; both were dropped in 1986. This motion suggests that it was Hronas’ parents who did not want her to participate although Carrillo, Salerno and Halpin claim it was their magnanimous decision to spare the children pain. Besides, even with such poor defence attorneys, surely these abductions would easily crumble under scrutiny and damage the credibility of other cases.

The above was a defence motion. One might argue that defence attorneys lie and grasp at all kinds of theories to save their clients’ lives. Yes, some of them do but the Ramirez case is unusual. One: his defence made the minimal effort, even when exculpatory evidence was revealed in court by independent scientists. Two: these cases clearly had nothing to do with Ramirez. There is also suggestion that Ramirez was threatened by detectives to confess to the crimes otherwise they will pin the abduction cases on him.

People often accuse us of disrespecting victims as if showing old newspaper articles is bullying children of the past, who are now middle-aged adults. We know the children were traumatised. We aren’t blaming them for changing stories or giving inaccurate information, because they were all under 12-years-old and terrified. We are merely showing that justice was not served and we aren’t the people you should be angry with. We will never know who attacked these children now because everyone believes that it was Richard Ramirez and the victims have been given a false peace of mind: “case closed”.

There were also other similar attacks occurring in the same area after Ramirez was imprisoned. One of these men could have been the real perpetrator. If so, he went on to traumatise more children because detectives ‘cleared the books’ by sweeping them away with the Night Stalker hysteria.

You might have come to the end of this article wondering if we have an explanation for Mei Leung’s murder in San Francisco, 11 months before these Los Angeles abductions commenced. We do: the DNA sample was flawed and again, the suspect looked nothing like Ramirez and the crime has been ‘Satanized’ with time.

Whatever comes out on future documentaries or books regarding new allegations of molestation, they do not invalidate our investigations concerning the 1985 abductions. The perpetrator was most likely to be someone else.

-VenningB-

Further reading:

Children were invited to a line up in April 1985.

Further evidence of rigged identification.

Our article on Mei Leung’s case.

L.A. County child abductions after Ramirez’s arrest.

Richard Ramirez’s alleged confessions.

Anastasia Hronas and the Native American tattoo.
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, IT’S RELEVANT, LOOSE ENDS

False Confessions: a Short Follow-up

This is a short sequel to “False Confessions?” from a year ago. In the previous post, Carrillo and Salerno’s misconduct was discussed, in which they violated Ramirez’s rights by interrogating him after he requested a lawyer, and they had read him his Miranda warning. Judge Nelson threw Richard Ramirez’s speculative discussion of the Night Stalker (in the third person) out of court, declaring them inadmissible.

It also covered post-trial confessions for which there is currently no evidence. The third issue it discussed (which is the subject of this post) was other quotes made by police officers guarding Ramirez after his arrest when they were waiting for Carrillo and Salerno to arrive for the proper interrogation. The court files provided a timeline, pictured below.

In Los Angeles court documents discovered in October 2024, it was revealed that none of these supposed confessions were recorded either. In fact, the officers in question, the LAPD’s Officer James Kaiser and Officer Jim Ellis never even wrote them down. Sergeant George Thomas (also LAPD) claimed that Ramirez stopped confessing when he noticed he was writing. Philip Carlo wrote that he had “copious notes” but where are they? The 2008 petition says that Thomas was unprepared with only a piece of paper. He testified that he had no idea whether or not a tape recorder was in the interview room, nor did he obtain one. None of these officers read Ramirez his rights after arresting him and taking him to Hollenbeck. Worse, they also conflicted one another’s recollections of Ramirez’s “confessions”, although details of the contradictions were not contained within the files. Ramirez too seems to have denied making the confessions, according to the court filings.

One might say, “Well, of course he would deny it!” but at this point, there is still no hard evidence that Ramirez confessed on the day he was arrested. The police, who are supposed to collect evidence, failed yet again.

In these motions, the defence team argued that there was ample opportunity to tape Ramirez – someone whose alleged murder spree was extremely high-profile and whose capture was greatly anticipated. It seems inconceivable that officers did not fetch a tape recorder ready for when Ramirez was brought to the police station. Had they been instructed not to because the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department wanted to be the ones to do it? Again, we can only speculate.

Is it simple incompetence? Or were they lying about Ramirez’s utterances? Without proof, statements of biased police were useless.

The defence also asserted that even though Ramirez had supposedly confessed to Jim Ellis and George Thomas earlier that day, Carrillo and Salerno made no mention of this in their interrogation of Ramirez.

You would expect them to ask why he was now denying murders when he had already confessed to other police that same day.

The issue of Carrillo and Salerno questioning Ramirez after a head injury and a Miranda warning was already covered in the other post but there is a little more to add here. After the caution is given and the suspect invokes their rights, questioning must cease. It did not, hence the misconduct. They not only continued, but they lied to Ramirez. An example of a Miranda warning would be:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

Carrillo attempted to mislead Ramirez into believing that his statements post-Miranda could not be used in evidence. We criticise Carrillo a lot, but this is not illegal, nor is it misconduct. Police are allowed and even trained to trick suspects in order to trip them up or make them crack and tell the truth. They are allowed to lie to them. These techniques are effective. Ramirez seems not to have fallen for such tricks. It is tempting to infer that he was not guilty.

Maybe this is why Carrillo thinks Ramirez was “smart” because he could never deceive him or trip him up. But if Ramirez was truly smart, then why would he then begin a third person confession to Carrillo? A clever man would keep quiet. Alternatively, did Ramirez believe Carrillo’s lie that nothing he said post-Miranda could be used against him so began to speculate about the Night Stalker’s actions with the two detectives? The tapes are yet to be released. All we know is that Judge Nelson disagreed that they were confessions and that even if they were, they were not admissible.

As mentioned in our book, Carrillo claims Ramirez “knew the law”, so his choice to confess in the third person was deliberate: he knew it would invalidate it. We know from his psychiatric evaluations that Ramirez found legal proceedings confusing and only displayed a “cloak of competence” so this might be a matter of debate. The coercive interrogation techniques outlined in the other post might suggest Carrillo and Salerno knew there was something ‘not quite right’ about Ramirez so it is also debatable whether the ‘smart killer’ claim is all part of the Night Stalker character.

Regarding Ramirez’s conduct in TV interviews, it is clear that did not speak like the average dumb thug off the street. However, it is possible to be articulate yet still cognitively impaired. While this is open to interpretation (and of course choppy editing and unprofessional interviewers) he comes across like he is struggling to truly answer some questions or he cannot answer them directly. He always spoke about serial killers in general, never about himself. He would say “the crimes they say I committed” rather than “my crimes”. This might suggest he was exactly the same during the interrogation. Please feel free to write your opinions in the comments section.

Halpin: Not A Man of His Word…

Although Nelson threw out the Carrillo/Salerno taped “confessions”, the prosecutor, Philip Halpin, later presented testimonies from the LAPD officers regarding further alleged admissions – despite a previous judge, and Halpin himself (“The People”) reassuring the defence that they would not be raised at trial.

Halpin’s submission of confession ‘evidence’ for which there is no recorded proof is a violation of due process under Stephan vs State (Alaska) 1985. There must be an opportunity for jurors to assess the nature of the interrogation and the suspect’s responses on tape. Ramirez’s lawyers never made any effort to challenge the alleged confessions, nor did they complain that Halpin had defied Judge Nelson’s previous assurance that none of this would be used in the trial. If you have read our book or other posts, you will know this is a pattern with Philip Halpin.

And this post will end with another shameless plug of the book. Know anyone who likes killers, court cases and miscarriage of justice stories? Get it for them on Amazon!

-VenningB-
POOR EVIDENCE

A Bit More Ballistics Bollocks
“Robinson was the last of three law enforcement firearms examiners to evaluate the general rifling characteristics of the ballistics evidence. Yet the two other examiners, who did not reach entirely the same conclusions, were not called to testify at trial. For example, in the report prepared by Robert Christansen on March 28, 1985, he concluded that due to distortions of the .22-caliber bullet in the Okazaki case, no positive comparison can be made to the Yu case.” (2008 Petition of Habeas Corpus page 634)

When we visited the Hall of Records in Los Angeles, we found a few pieces of information that were worth sharing.
This is an addition to the article I wrote concerning the flawed and contradictory ballistics reports. It’s relatively short, which I am sure you’ll be grateful for, as the original article is quite long, but you should read it to understand the overall picture.

Joinders Get Convictions – A Brief Recap

As the physical evidence in the Night Stalker crime spree was relatively scant and circumstantial, the prosecutors needed to apply joinders to bolster the weak evidence. They had to show a connection between random incidents through cross-admissible evidence, whether firearms, shoeprints, fingerprints, etc. A detailed post on joinders can be found HERE

Firearms evidence was used in eight of the crimes Ramirez was found guilty of and two incidents where the trials were stayed or charges dropped. The final conclusions, made by Deputy Sheriff Edward Robinson, looked like this:
- .22 calibre revolver – Okazaki, Yu and Kneiding.
- .22 calibre revolver – Zazzara and Khovananth
- .22 Jennings semi-auto – Doi
- .25 auto – Abowath and Petersen (Pan – trial stayed indefinitely, Carns – dropped)
It was not always so.

Deputy Sheriff Edward Robinson worked in the firearms identification section. He became involved in the case in April 1986, almost a year after firearms officers Robert Christansen and Robert Hawkins examined the evidence. He was the one who gave the prosecution what they wanted and, consequently, the only one called to testify; the other two firearms officers either disagreed with him or each other.

Sgt Robert Christansen, was the first of the three firearms officers to examine the bullets.
His findings differ significantly from Deputy Sheriff Edward Robinson’s, the last of the three officers to examine the distorted bullets, casings, and fragments. Their conflicting reports can be found in documents 7-20 of the 2008 petition and in the original ballistics article; there is no need for me to repeat that again.

Discovery

During the preliminary hearings, Richard’s defence counsel requested that prosecution witnesses be made available for cross-examination.
From the documents found within volume two of the case files –

“The Court: Make that request, and it will be granted.
Arturo Hernandez: We are making that request at this point.
Philip Halpin: That has been an open offer since we began this thing, so there is no problem. ”

In March 1987, the court ordered Halpin to make Sgt Christansen available to the defence for an interview. Halpin did not comply.

The court: I will order you to have Mr Christansen here, Mr Halpin, on the 7th. But I would like Mr Christansen here for the discovery proceedings and consultation with the defence on the 7th. I think that is reasonable”. (Volume 2, People V Ramirez case files)

Volume 2, People v Ramirez case files – transcribed below

The document goes on to say:

“Mr Halpin did not present Mr Christansen to the court on the 7th and as of this date he has not provided Mr Christansen to the defense or even offered any explanation why he has not to the court.
This serves as an example of how the prosecutor can not be trusted to comply with court orders or to cooperate with the defense on matters previously agreed upon.” (I have used the correct spelling for Christansen’s name in my transcript)

The Law is an Ass?

Halpin cited Walker v Superior Court, a case that stated a witness did not need to submit to an interview (an interview differs from cross-examination). As we hear nothing more about the matter, we can assume that the trial court did not overrule and force Halpin to comply with the court order. However, that citation denied Ramirez due process.

It is thanks to the affidavit (found in document 7-4) that we have been able to examine the conflicted firearms reports. Sgt Christansen, whose report disagreed with the prosecution and their chosen expert witness, never testified in court; therefore, he was never cross-examined by the defence, and his conclusions were never heard by the jury.

The wily prosecutor managed to avoid the earlier ballistics reports coming under close scrutiny by circumventing cross-examination, and the defence, at trial, conceded the ballistics evidence because of their failure to give their own firearms expert the evidence to test.

Philip Halpin, prosecuting attorney in 1989. Credit: Michael Haering, Los Angeles Herald Examiner Collection.

I read a lot and write a bit
~ Jay ~
Uncategorized

Soup For Two

While reviewing the Ramirez files at the Los Angeles Archives and Records Center, we came across an original trial document that sheds additional light on the Vincow case. Notably, a statement made by Detective Jesse Castillo, who was assigned to investigate the Vincow crime scene, caught our attention. Detective Castillo reported that when he arrived at the crime scene on the afternoon of June 28, 1984, he discovered the brutal murder of Jennie Vincow and also noticed two soup bowls in the kitchen.

Although the details about the soup bowls may seem inconsequential, they raise significant questions when we consider Jennie’s relationship with her sons, especially Jack, who visited her each afternoon. The fact that Jennie prepared two bowls of soup on the day of her murder is noteworthy. Why had she prepared two bowls of soup the very day she was murdered? Was she anticipating a visitor for lunch? If so, who could it have been? Jack Vincow confirmed he visited his mother daily between 1p.m-2 p.m. So, was Jennie preparing soup for herself and Jack fully aware of his daily routine? We can be certain Richard Ramirez hadn’t been invited over for soup.

It is concerning that the soup bowls in the kitchen were overlooked and seemingly disappeared, as they may have been key pieces of evidence. Why were these potential sources of evidence disregarded? Testing these bowls for trace evidence may have helped identify who was in Jennie’s apartment on the day of her murder. Furthermore, why has the fact that there were two soups bowls on the kitchen table been hidden for decades and buried deep in the files of the Los Angeles Archives? As of the writing of this post, no further information is available regarding these mysterious soup bowls. Once again, we are left with more questions than answers, a common theme in the so-called Nightstalker crimes.

Philip Carlos’s book includes some interesting information concerning Wanda Doss, the owner of the apartment building where Jennie and Jack Vincow lived. The source of his information is not noted. However, regarding the trial, Carlo seems to have had access to sources we do not. Perhaps he had access to the documents buried in the archives files that were unavailable to us. According to Carlo, Wanda Doss reportedly wrote a statement claiming that she saw Jack having breakfast in Jennie’s apartment just hours before she was found dead. When the Hernandez’s sought to present this as evidence, Halpin promptly objected, dismissing it as “hearsay.” Judge Tynan quickly concurred and sustained the objection, which prevented the information from being presented in court.

When we consider that Jennie’s time of death was estimated to have been within 2-3 hours of when she had been found, this aligns closely with when Wanda Doss was alleged to have seen him in the apartment. If Wanda Doss had indeed written a statement about seeing Jack in his mother’s apartment on the morning of the day she was murdered, this could explain his reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement. Jack Vincow’s lack of cooperation with police after his mother’s murder raises substantial concerns about his potential involvement in the crime.

Fingerprint evidence from the Vincow crime scene

Within the same document that addresses the mysterious soup bowls, statements from LAPD latent fingerprint technician Renaldo Clara emerge, highlighting his analysis of the window screen at the Vincow crime scene.

During the trial in 1989, Clara testified that he could not determine when the fingerprint had been left on the window screen. However, his initial statement reported that it could have been left up to a year before the crime occurred.

While this may seem like a minor detail, it is important because Clara’s original statement directly contradicts his court testimony. He initially claimed that the fingerprint on the window screen “could have been left up to a year before the crime” but later stated that he could not determine the timeframe for when the partial fingerprint was left. The inconsistency in his statements highlights further uncertainty regarding the timeline of the evidence.

There were also issues with Clara’s fingerprinting procedure. He prematurely removed the window screen from the crime scene before lifting for prints, exposing the evidence to potentially compromising environmental factors that could affect the integrity of the findings. This important detail has been conspicuously omitted from other trial documents.

The inconsistencies in Clara’s statements and his fingerprinting method raise further doubt about the reliability and integrity of the fingerprint evidence in the Vincow case.

KayCee