Lawyers for Ramirez Say Evidence Is Inconclusive

The chief lawyer for Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez told jurors Tuesday that they will hear evidence that fingerprints, blood and hair found at many of the crime scenes did not belong to either the victims or the defendant.

Opening the much delayed defense case in the serial murder trial, attorney Daniel V. Hernandez promised to present such testimony in keeping with the defense’s earlier espoused position that Ramirez is a victim of mistaken identity.

Hernandez told the Los Angeles Superior Court jury that he also will call expert witnesses who will testify that lighting and other conditions at the time of the crimes could not have allowed prosecution witnesses to positively place Ramirez at the scenes.

Didn’t Say He Is Innocent

The San Jose-based attorney also said one of the many Los Angeles public defenders who had represented Ramirez at the police lineup shortly after his arrest will testify that a police officer at the proceeding covertly alerted witnesses to Ramirez’s position in the six-person lineup.

But never during his daylong opening statement did Hernandez say outright that his client is innocent of the 13 murders and 30 other felonies with which he is charged.

Later, outside court, co-defense counsel Ray G. Clark said: “We hope not to have to prove him not guilty.”

Hernandez added: “We aren’t necessarily trying to prove someone else did it, but to show that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Hernandez’s opening statement--made after a week of speculation on whether there would be any defense--got off to a rocky start as the first of his many charts kept falling to the floor.

The chart itself contained a glaring error in that it placed a print for an Avia brand tennis shoe at a Glendale crime scene where, according to prosecution witnesses, none had been found. Distinctive shoeprints made by an Avia Aerobics model were found at the scene of seven of the 15 alleged Night Stalker attacks.

Although the shoes were never recovered, the shoeprints were part of a complex web of circumstantial evidence with which Deputy Dist. Atty. Philip Halpin and co-prosecutor Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Yochelson have sought to link all 15 crimes to Ramirez, a 29-year-old, self-proclaimed devil worshiper from El Paso.

The error on Hernandez’s chart prompted Halpin to say outside court: “I hope the jury has taken better notes than Mr. Hernandez has.”

Hernandez said in reply: “I expected that from him.”

Hernandez also told the jury of six men and six women, along with 11 alternates, that Ramirez was “inexperienced and not really well-versed in the profession of crime (who was) . . . just learning the ropes” from more accomplished thieves who frequented the Greyhound bus station in downtown Los Angeles and plied their trade in the suburbs.

Hernandez told jurors that defense evidence will show that a “Christian medallion” had been found near the site of where Night Stalker victim Tsai-Lian Yu was murdered in Monterey Park and that it “could well have belonged to the person who attacked her.”

As for a baseball-type cap found at another murder scene the same night several miles away in Rosemead, Hernandez said scientific evidence would show that body fluids from the cap’s sweatband did not “match in any way” those of Ramirez.

The defense lawyer also said that unidentified blood, fingerprints and brown hairs were found at the scenes of up to eight of the 15 alleged Night Stalker attacks, most of which occurred in the spring and summer of 1985 throughout Los Angeles County.

For example, Hernandez promised to introduce evidence to show that blood samples found in the Arcadia home of murder victim Mary Louise Cannon did not belong to either Cannon or Ramirez.

Hernandez, who had earlier sought extended delays in the case to recuperate from what his doctor said were stress-related health problems, perspired profusely during his opening statment.

He concluded by asking jurors to remain open-minded and to consider all the evidence, reminding them that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The first defense witness is expected to take the stand this morning.