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

Richard Ramirez’s Appeals

Direct Appeal – Los Angeles Superior Court

People v. Ramirez, No. S012944 (Cal. 2006)

4^th October 1999 – This appeal is automatic when a defendant is sentenced to death. Due to many delays and extensions of time, Ramirez’s direct appeal was finally filed, almost ten years to the day that he was sentenced to death.

6^th June 2006 – 7^th August 2006: the appeal was argued and the court affirmed the convictions, thereby denying that Ramirez had incompetent lawyers, or that his trial was unfair. The 37 claims made by his direct appeal lawyers can be found on pages 3 – 8 of his 2008 petition. In short, all the problems highlighted on this blog were dismissed. This suggests that the direct appeal was not even read. Ramirez had spent 16.6 years on death row and 21 in prison altogether.

27^th September 2006: A rehearing was denied.

The Deputy Attorney General blamed Ramirez for choosing his own lawyers, saying this should be the end of the matter. However, we now know that Ramirez was mentally incompetent. Had the Hernandezes moved for competency motions, the trial would probably not have gone ahead. While the issue of competency came up twice in the direct appeal (claims 3 and 19), because his brain damage and illnesses were not revealed at trial, the courts did not realise the extent of the miscarriage of justice. Or perhaps they did, but were more content with putting the blame on Ramirez himself.

As for the unqualified defence who should have been stopped by the judge, Justice Carol Corrigan said (in the Associated Press):

“What is it we’re supposed to do here? Say, “Mr Ramirez, you picked two doofuses as attorneys and you have no right to keep them.”
The Fresno Bee, 7th July 2006

In short, yes, Judge Tynan should have halted the trial, even at a late stage. It is Supreme Court law. Justice Carlos Moreno wrote:

“A defendant whose request to substitute counsel is granted cannot complain on appeal that the trial court should have denied the request.”
The Californian – 8th August 2006

Moreno clearly failed to read claims 3 and 19 about incompetency. Ramirez had no idea how bad the Hernandezes were.

The attorney general said the judge should only intervene when a defence attorney is unlicenced, has a physical incapacity or is unwilling to represent the client – but two of these apply to the Ramirez trial. Daniel Hernandez was often ill, and Arturo Hernandez abandoned Ramirez. Perhaps this was not known, but claim 1 was about their ineptitude.

And it comes back to Ramirez’s incompetence. So impaired in judgement was he, that he asked Daniel Hernandez to represent him in his direct appeal. He was removed. But of course, these judges could not be bothered to read it thoroughly. These Supreme Court judges may use “justice” as a title, but there is no justice here.

First State Habeas Corpus – California Supreme Court

People v. Ramirez, No. S125755 (Cal. 21^st June 2004)

A habeas corpus must be filed within 60 days of a direct appeal affirming the convictions. Because Ramirez’s case was so huge (48,325 pages of trial transcripts) his state habeas lawyers began working on it in 2004, before the direct appeal was heard. A habeas corpus presents the chance for new evidence to be submitted. Most of the 2004 declarations are contained with the 2008 petition, and can be read there (or on this very blog!).

19^th December 2007: Ramirez’s state Writ of Habeas Corpus was denied. The 19 claims that were denied can be found on pages 8 – 10 of the 2008 petition, and again, the California Supreme Court was essentially denying that anything was wrong with Ramirez’s trial, despite the huge amounts of new evidence presented by the appellate lawyers, namely his background, mental illness documents and exhibits demonstrating how inept his counsel were. This list suggests that Ramirez was also denied ineffective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal.

Writ of Certiorari – United States Supreme Court

This only asked two questions:

(1) After the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States
v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006), is
a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated by retained
counsel’s unqualified representation in a capital case?

(2) Whether California’s death penalty law violates the Fifth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendments by permitting the trier of fact to impose a sentence of death without finding the existence of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt?

29^th May 2007: Certiorari was denied, suggesting that the Supreme Court also did not read the case properly, and did not care that Ramirez had incompetent lawyers. Most of the claims in the state habeas corpus related to the death penalty and how it was unconstitutional for Ramirez, so it seems the Supreme Court was also unconcerned with this issue.

Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus – California Central District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

People v. Ramirez, No. 2:07-cv-08310-BRO

17^th December 2008: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed. This is the document that most of this blog’s information comes from.

His federal lawyers were hoping for evidentiary hearings with the hope that exculpatory evidence could be used in further appeals to overturn the convictions.

Second State Habeas Corpus – California Supreme Court

People v. Ramirez, No. S171312, (Cal. Mar. 16, 2009)

16^th March 2009: With more evidence, Ramirez was able to file a second state habeas.

Ramirez sadly died waiting for the outcome of these two appeals after 23 years on death row and 27 years in solitary confinement altogether. We will never know whether the Ninth Circuit would have overturned Ramirez’s convictions, but the circuit judges pay less deference to the lower courts. There is however, a precedent for allowing a ‘serial killer’ to go free. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit overturned the Skid Row Stabber’s convictions pending a retrial, but Bobby Joe Maxwell never experienced freedom. He fell into a coma and died before he could be released. The murders remain unsolved. By ‘coincidence’, Maxwell’s crimes supposedly involved ‘satanism’ and the Greyhound bus depot, so often mentioned in Ramirez’s case. Even if Ramirez had the convictions overturned, they would have charged him with the murder of Mei Leung, although he would again be incompetent to stand trial.

-VenningB-

(Originally published 8th March 2024)
SNARK

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 individual 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 ~
IT’S RELEVANT

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-

08/02/2024
DEATH ROW, LOOSE ENDS

The Night Stalker Case and Wrongful Convictions
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.

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 the Richard Ramirez case: This is not an exhaustive list, but it highlights major issues that undermined the integrity of his trial.

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.

Politics

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 “Night Stalker.” 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. Again, 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.
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.

KayCee

Jan 25, 2024