Chilling Stalker Testimony Turns Up Few Firm Links

The grisly tales of random victims’ slashed throats, gouged eyeballs and point-blank shootings told by the first 30 witnesses in the preliminary hearing for accused Night Stalker Richard Ramirez have served as an unsettling reminder of the climate of near-hysteria which pervaded Southern California during the string of attacks attributed to the serial killer last year.

Thus far, however, few direct--and no undisputed--links have been established in three weeks of courtroom testimony to implicate Ramirez in the brutal crimes.

Witnesses and police investigators have already testified on six of 14 murders allegedly committed by the 26-year-old drifter from El Paso between June, 1984, and his arrest in August, 1985. But the prosecution has yet to call expert witnesses who are expected to offer more conclusive evidence tying Ramirez to the crime spree--if the judge rejects a defense motion seeking to make such evidence inadmissible.

In a heavily guarded courtroom crowded with reporters but relatively few others, police, eyewitnesses and alleged victims of the Night Stalker have testified:

- Two fingerprints were found on a window screen at the apartment of 79-year-old Jennie Vincow, who was slashed to death in her Glassell Park home in June, 1984. But the prints, which police last year said were those of Ramirez, could have been on the screen for an hour, a day, a month or a year, a police expert conceded.

- Maria Hernandez, an intended murder victim, identified Ramirez in court as the man who shot her and her Rosemead roommate Dayle Okazaki, who died in the March, 1985, attack. But Hernandez also acknowledged that Ramirez looks nothing like the police composite she helped prepare.

- Two eyewitnesses testified they saw Ramirez tussling with Tsai-Lian Yu, 30, who was shot dead near her car in Monterey Park the same night Okazaki was murdered several miles away. But one said he could not positively identify Ramirez. And the other surprised both the prosecution and defense with his identification since he had previously told police he could not identify Ramirez.

- No specific evidence was presented that tied Ramirez to the March, 1985, murders of a Whittier couple, Maxine, 44, and Vincent Zazzara, 64, and none has yet been presented in the shooting of William Doi, 65, in his Monterey Park home in May, 1985. Further testimony in the Doi case is expected today.

Ramirez, manacled throughout, has remained relatively subdued during the hearing, but grinning at some of the more gruesome details last week. The lanky, long-haired defendant spends most of his time poring over photographs of the crime scenes and newspaper accounts of the case, passing suggestions to his attorneys or resting his head on the defense table.

The dearth of direct links to him does not necessarily mean the prosecution has a weaker case than the public had been led to believe.

A ‘Bare-Bones’ Case

In interviews last week, Deputy Dist. Atty. P. Philip Halpin, who because of a gag order cannot discuss evidence yet to be detailed in court, indicated three explanations for his having presented what he himself acknowledges is a “bare-bones” case thus far.

First, the prosecutor said, he is under no obligation at this point to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

“This is a preliminary hearing; we don’t approach it the same way as we approach a trial . . . we must show (only) a strong suspicion that the defendant has committed the crimes,” he said. “Every time I get ready to call someone (to the witness stand), I look at them and decide whether I really need them.”

Halpin said he plans to call no more than 150 witnesses on his list of 400 potential witnesses in order to speed up the hearing.

Second, Halpin, in his brisk, no-nonsense style, is proceeding through the charges chronologically whenever possible rather than trying to present his strongest evidence first, as he likely would in a trial.

According to the prosecutor, he has attempted to accommodate both the defense team and Los Angeles Municipal Judge James F. Nelson who prefer this type of chronological method. “And it’s just a better way to do it if we can,” added Halpin, a veteran prosecutor who successfully tried “Onion Field” killers Jimmy Lee Smith and Gregory U. Powell in 1969.

Third and perhaps most importantly, the prosecution is not expected to present testimony from such scientific witnesses as ballistics experts until after eyewitnesses and police investigators from each crime scene have concluded their time on the witness stand.

“We attempt to accommodate various witnesses, some of whom might be required to appear more than once,” explained Halpin, who declined comment on the number or type of experts he plans to call.

Judging by the testimony introduced thus far, evidence gleaned from Ramirez’s .38-caliber and .25-caliber pistols could prove crucial in some of the cases--particularly in a trial when the charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Before such evidence can be introduced, however, a legal showdown must be decided by Nelson.

In defense motions filed this month, Ramirez’s attorneys, Daniel Hernandez and Arturo Hernandez, have demanded that evidence, including the pistols and an automobile, be ruled inadmissible because they were allegedly seized in violation of their client’s constitutional rights.

Authorities, the defense contends, continued to interview Ramirez after the suspect told them he wanted to talk to a lawyer. Indeed, according to the defense, Ramirez was told his further statements could not be used against him because he had already asked for a lawyer and was also told it would “haunt” his mother “to her grave” if he didn’t tell investigators everything--even while they continued the interrogation.

Judge Nelson has said he will rule on these key motions just before the prosecution introduces the disputed evidence.

In general, both sides appear satisfied at this point with the manner in which the hearing is proceeding.

“The case is going precisely as we had anticipated at the outset,” said Halpin. “Thus far we have presented every piece of evidence we intended to present.”

Halpin plans to continue presenting the charges chronologically, wrapping up in no more than three months. The defense, which had initially estimated the hearing could last at least six months, agrees with the new time estimate.

But Daniel Hernandez, who is handling all the cross-examination for Ramirez, cautions that matters could change if he takes the unusual course of presenting defense witnesses, a possibility he said he is seriously considering.

“It’s strictly a one-sided preliminary at this point,” Hernandez said last week. “All I can do is cross-examine.”

Defense Motions Rejected

Nelson so far has rejected several defense motions to dismiss specific charges or the entire case based on such grounds as Halpin’s not proceeding in strict chronological order or having allegedly failed to comply with the gag order.

But Hernandez said he will continue to file objections and dismissal motions and undertake lengthy cross-examinations of witnesses. In his deliberate, somewhat plodding manner, Hernandez has usually taken about four times as long to question witnesses as Halpin.

“We have an obligation and duty to raise whatever issues (we can),” Hernandez explained. “We are preserving the record for appeal as one of our objectives.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, Nelson will rule on whether there is enough evidence to hold Ramirez for trial.