Expendable For A Cause.

When the case is made for Ramirez’s appeals, the same common arguments arise, often designed to shut people down with thought-terminating clichés, such as “You’re a hybristophile, get help!” You will find this low-grade insult on every platform.

I’ll start with that tired old “hybristophile” put-down:

Hybristophiles tend to be sexually aroused by criminality. Suggesting Ramirez might not have been involved in the crimes actually angers hybristophiles. They became enraged when they first saw this blog. There are of course covert hybristophiles who want to help and ‘fix’ the criminal, but we don’t fall into that category either. We aren’t trying to fix a dead man.

“You wouldn’t care if he wasn’t so attractive!”

We don’t talk about his looks, and outside of the context of identification, they’re irrelevant. You brought them up. Maybe you fancy him. Anyway, he couldn’t help his face. This topic is boring.

“You’re not lawyers.”

How do you know? You’ll find that most ordinary people can learn the law. And be called for jury service. A juror would be expected to discuss all this stuff and learn science in laymans terms. Therefore, we can too. This argument is basically just to silence us as if only lawyers can ever discuss legal matters. What logic are you following here? If only lawyers can talk about law then… Only criminals can talk about crime? Only politicians can discuss political matters? Only retail workers have the right to talk about shopping?

“Defence attorneys say any old bullshit to save their client. It’s LiTeRaLlY their job.”

Yes, but if you bother to read the trial documents, you will discover that Ramirez’s lawyers didn’t do anything to save him. They failed to examine the prosecution evidence in the preliminary hearing. When they raised it during the guilt phase of the trial, it was weak, boring or they never noticed discrepancies. Worse, during the penalty phase, they didn’t make any mitigating arguments to save his life despite having plenty of evidence of his illnesses and horrible upbringing. The jury waited for it and it never came.

The attorneys were hoping to be funded by a movie deal that never materialised. They didn’t realise the case was defendable until after the preliminary hearing. By the time they realised that Ramirez might be innocent of some of the crimes, they had no money for retained experts and tried to delay the trial as much as possible. It’s too complicated to explain here, so go and read these posts.

Ramirez’s appeals lawyers were trying to repair the damage done by the original lawyers years earlier, but thanks to a backlog in California’s system, it took 17 years – just to submit evidence. Ramirez died before any evidentiary hearings took place. Perhaps they would have discovered his innocence.

“Everyone has appeals, so there’s nothing special about this. Ramirez’s were rejected.”

Everyone has automatic direct appeals, yes. But you can’t submit evidence, and they can be summarily dismissed without being read. Petitioners can apply for habeas corpus, but not everyone is granted this – inmates must also be victims of consititional violations for habeas corpus to be submitted – even if a person is presenting evidence of Actual Innocence. Thus, innocent people are trapped in prison. Some state level habeas appeals aren’t even read, so claims aren’t exhausted, allowing further appeals. This happened to Richard Ramirez. See this post.

“Ramirez chose his bad lawyers so can’t complain.”

He chose bad attorneys because he wasn’t competent enough to understand how badly he was being let down. They failed to file competency motions – they had vested interest in pushing him through a trial so they could quickly cash in on their notoriety.

“The evidence was a slam-dunk! An open-and-shut case!”

Well, it would seem like that if no defence is presented. It shouldn’t have been a ‘slam-dunk’. The ‘rare shoe’ evidence has been debunked and hair, semen and blood evidence ruled Ramirez out as a suspect in at least five cases. Even the ballistics evidence was faulty and contrived.

“You can’t question jurors. They decide.”

Even government officials come out with this line. Firstly, yes you can. Some jurors aren’t qualified to serve, as was the case here. Some of them were quite irrational and should not have passed the voir dire process. Secondly, if there is a bad defence or no defence, then of course jurors will vote for a guilty verdict. If the defence had enough money to present the correct evidence, Ramirez might have been acquitted. They were also under pressure from the massive hysteria surrounding the case and frightened because one of them was murdered during the deliberation phase. No one wanted to cause a hung jury, not even Cindy Haden.

“Ramirez wasn’t mentally ill, just a psychopath.”

Whatever you’ve been reading is false information. He should never have stood trial. He was psychotic, not psychopathic. Read about the psychiatric reports.

“You cherry-pick information, ignore evidence and are biased.”

We don’t cherry-pick. We discuss the prosecution evidence and present his appeal lawyers’ rebuttals. Yes, we are biased in favour of Ramirez because we are presenting the defence he never received. Justice means both sides are properly heard. I hope you never end up on trial if this is your attitude to justice and trials. Ramirez was denied due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to be defended by competent counsel. There is protocol to follow, and rules from the American Bar Association. Perhaps go and read them.

“His DNA was found on a 9-year-old. Explain THAT!”

The DNA wasn’t on the body. It was a contaminated mixed sample on a decayed, improperly stored 25-year-old piece of material. Mixed samples can give false positives. The SFPD were deliberately hunting for crimes to pin on Ramirez. Read here.

“Why are you defending a kiddie fiddler?”

The child abductor was reported multiple times as a blonde man of medium height and build. The idea that Ramirez was doing it was invented by Detective Carrillo. Los Angeles was full of kidnapping paedophiles.

“How dare you question Detective Carrillo?! He dedicated his life to this case.”

The hunt for the killer took just six months and most of what you’ve heard about the caricature was invented and engineered. Carrillo’s involvement in the cases caused the media to snoop, which in turn led to hysteria and pressure on the police. However, Carrillo has dedicated his life to grifting on the back of the Night Stalker phenomena.

“You’re dumb groupies in love with him!”

We’re not interested in the groupie/pen pal aspect. It’s so boring and this “dumb groupie” accusation reeks of sexism. It assumes we are not just female, but slow-witted giggly ones. It is said to make people feel small and put them in their place. We see you, and you’re not clever.

“You only chose this case because it’s famous and you want attention and money.”

No, we just noticed major inconsistencies in the case and went to investigate. We are not the first and won’t be the last. If we were bothered about fame, we’d have a big social media presence. This is our quiet corner of the internet that continues to grow as more people understand what happened in the case. Also, taking on a notorious case like this is quite risky because it invites abuse from nutters, and could cause distress for victims and their families. Sometimes it is nerve-wracking to tell people what we’re working on and even people we know personally have avoided engaging with our conversations on the topic, because on the surface, a miscarriage of justice on this scale seems frankly unbelievable.

“You’re trying to make money from the case because it’s high-profile.”

If only that were true. The blog is not monetised, and we’ll only receive 30% of the book royalties. Not everything on the internet is some cynical grifty side-hustle. Don’t measure others by your own basic standards.

“So, you really think he’s innocent?”

The burden of proof is never on the defence. Their role is only to test the strength of the prosecution’s arguments; to demonstrate reasonable doubt. That’s the role we have chosen to emulate. It is likely that Ramirez was innocent of some of the crimes, unless you have a better theory as to why someone else’s blood and semen were found inside the victims/homes.

“Conspiracy theorist freak!“

Ask yourself: ‘Why do legal documents upset me so much?’ Defending a suspect is not a conspiracy theory if you have credible evidence to support it. If you end up on trial, are you going to call your lawyers conspiracy theorists when they try to defend you?

“The case is so famous that, if it truly was a miscarriage of justice, then it would have been noticed sooner.”

Firstly, it was covered up, then hidden in plain sight. Secondly, we aren’t the first people to discover this. The inconsistencies in the Night Stalker case have been mentioned in two other books in the mid-90s, including the famous biography by Philip Carlo. Just because you’re incapable of original thoughts doesn’t mean that someone else can’t be the first to say something.

“Why are you denying LiTeRaL evidence?”

Again, the evidence is listed in every murder post – but of course you people don’t read before typing out your rage-opinions. We are giving alternative explanations for who left the evidence. You know, like a defence attorney/barrister might.

“You’re obsessed. Get a life.”

This is another thought-terminating cliché. People who say this are enraged that someone has more knowledge than them. It’s to make you look like a lunatic, to humiliate you as someone with no hobbies. Usually said by people who sit on forums all day with one hand on the keyboard and the other down their pants.

“You’re disrespecting the victims.”

I hope you also say this to detectives who make money from discussing the gore and who name child victims without their permission? If you spend all day on true crime forums, fantasising and circle-jerking over aspects of crimes, you’re a damn hypocrite. If you’re a family member of a victim, I’m sorry about what happened, it’s horrendous. But discussing legal documents is not disrespectful. No amount of insults and assumptions about us will make us stop discussing public domain documents. Again, do you harass lawyers about this? If so, you don’t believe in justice and that isn’t helping your loved one. Discussing other suspects, however, just might.

Also, if we don’t think a victim is credible, it isn’t disrespectful to say so. Victims are often harshly cross-examined in court to the point they break down crying. Some of the Night Stalker victims and witnesses should have been impeached and thrown out for perjury at trial, but were not because the defence was inept.

“They’re lying!”

Everything we present here has been taken from arguments made by the appellate lawyers, his original attorneys, some police who testified for the defence, and eyewitnesses. We haven’t made anything up.  We even give you petition page numbers or document numbers so you can go and study this for yourselves.

TLDR? It’s okay; we get it. It’s nearly 1,000 pages, including the supporting documents. We’ve been reading them for years; maybe you haven’t, but don’t project your shortcomings onto those you don’t know. 

“You weren’t even alive back then.”

Some of us were, some of us weren’t. Either way, it has no relevance to the opportunity to analyse documents. Your history professor didn’t live in the 16th Century either, so what’s your point?

“He’s 15-years-old with no life. He sits in front of a computer, no job, no source of income and everybody gives him everything he has in life. He’s the shepherd, they’re the sheep … he’s got a bunch of people believing he’s right…”

Your powers of deduction are remarkable. Have you ever thought of becoming a detective for the LASD? You might even become famous for “catching a serial killer.”

–Venning and Jay–