Reporter’s Testimony in ‘Stalker’ Trial Contradicts Alibi on Ramirez Texas Visit

Alibi testimony by Richard Ramirez’s father that the suspected serial killer was in Texas when two “Night Stalker” attacks occurred here in May, 1985, was contradicted in court Monday by a newspaper reporter.

Former El Paso Times reporter David Hancock, who now works for the Miami Herald, testified that when he interviewed Julian Ramirez-Tapia in 1985 on the day of Richard Ramirez’s arrest, the elder Ramirez said he had not seen his son in years.

The elder Ramirez had told a Los Angeles Superior Court jury in May that his son had been in Texas for a family gathering when two of the 15 attacks in which Ramirez is charged, including one murder, took place.

Hancock, the prosecution’s final rebuttal witness in the six-month trial, testified that he went to Ramirez-Tapia’s home for comment after Richard Ramirez’s Aug. 31, 1985, arrest. In an article published in the El Paso paper the next day, Hancock reported that the elder Ramirez said he had not seen his son for at least two years and that drugs had caused them to grow apart.

‘Hurt and Shaken’

Outside of court, Hancock recalled that the senior Ramirez appeared “hurt and shaken” when he informed him of the nature of the charges against Richard Ramirez.

“It was like I had slapped his face,” Hancock said.

The 29-year-old defendant is charged with 13 murders and 30 other felonies committed during a series of attacks throughout Los Angeles County, mainly during the spring and summer of 1985.

Last week, the elder Ramirez’s testimony was also disputed in court by Dr. Peter Leung, a dentist, who said Richard Ramirez was in his Los Angeles office receiving dental work in late May of 1985.

In all, the prosecutors, Deputy Dist. Attys. Phil Halpin and Alan Yochelson, called 14 rebuttal witnesses. Another 137 prosecution witnesses were called during the main part of the trial, which began Jan. 30.

After the prosecutors rested their case Monday, defense attorney Daniel V. Hernandez asked Judge Michael A. Tynan for additional time to locate witnesses to rebut Hancock.

Halpin, characterizing a delay as unnecessary, told Tynan, “It’s the Hernandez mentality. It’s been going on for four years.”

Sought Postponements

By winning a delay, Halpin declared, the defense team, which has sought postponements throughout the proceedings against Ramirez, could feel that “they’ve snookered Halpin again.”

But Tynan, citing the length and cost of the trial, said that a two-week delay would prove worthwhile to avoid the possibility of a successful appeal if Ramirez were found guilty.

Tynan agreed to allow Hernandez to fly to El Paso, where the lawyer was planning to go anyway for the wedding of a legal associate, to seek witnesses.

While Hernandez is away, Halpin and defense co-counsel Ray G. Clark will meet with the judge to work out the wording of jury instructions. Final arguments are expected to begin the week of July 10.