See my comment above. I would add that the "whys" are extremely important for trying to prevent the manifestation of these people as well as identifying them.
Night Stalker on Netflix
- Thread starter Tommy.thompson
- Start date
See my comment above. I would add that the "whys" are extremely important for trying to prevent the manifestation of these people as well as identifying them.
Some psychopaths are made not born. Understanding the why can improve intervention and prevention of future criminal behavior.
Plus I think it helps folks wrap their heads around the question 'how could any human being commit such horrific crimes?' It's not until we learn of his childhood and traumatic upbringing that we can begin to understand his behavior (that's not to be misinterpreted as acceptance).
Last edited:
Observing and studying why psychopaths do what they do doesn’t prevent individuals like Ramirez from evolving into monsters. Name me one instance in history where that has happened.
As for identifying them in advance of committing crimes, that’s nearly impossible. Even if the psychotic uncle and other nefarious influences had been identified before Ramirez acted, it would require social resources that simply don’t exist. At least not to the extent that could blanket all potential psychopaths out there. It’s an ideological fantasy.
What difference does it make if they are made and not born? They’re still psychopaths that take innocent lives away. Again, knowing the why wouldn’t have prevented Ramirez from killing and won’t prevent future psychopaths from killing.
Difference being intervention and prevention. Whether we're talking social services or the justice system, interrupting abuse and correcting behavior can prevent criminal behavior.
Tell a detective or FBI profiler understanding the why is irrelevant, btw. Knowledge of criminal history and behavior patterns is critical to solving and preventing crime.
Last edited:
The why’s might be able to help track a killer but that is more about profiling and tracking than it is prevention. Preventing people like Ramirez from self actualizing their demons is a fantasy. Social services? You’ve got to be kidding.
Got called out to a murder last night to work and turned on Netflix to watch and wind down before I catch some sleep after getting home. Good Lord, I am completely wiped after working only three the past two months. I could not fathom working as many as they did in a weekly basis. Didn’t realize how many people this guy killed. Very good series so far.
While you are entitled to your opinion, I respectfully disagree. I believe his criminal behavior may have been preventable if, 1) he was not subjected to such extreme emotional, psychological, and physical abuse/trauma, or 2) social services intervened and he received ongoing treatment. Historically, social services has had success in dismantling abusive living situations and righting paths. Yet, appears Ramirez had no positive influences in his life, just negative. It's no surprise he became a psychopathic criminal.
Anyway, agree to disagree.
Fwiw, btw, I'm not apologizing for Ramirez or trying to diminish his actions. He deserved capital punishment, imo.
Last edited:
Just finished it. That was a very good series. Is it me, or did the San Francisco officer crack the case when he punched Ramirez's friend in the face, demanding his last name? I mean, that was it right? Before that, they had nothing.
I just finished the third episode. The last one must be pretty screwed up because right now it seems like I’m watching a really well-done police procedural documentary.
I’ve been keeping up on Wikipedia so I can get a handle on where everything happened. I moved to LA a few years ago and don’t know the geography extremely well. One of the things I picked up is that he threw his shoes off of the Golden Gate Bridge because he was following the case on TV. It sounds like he heard about the shoes being a significant clue from the Diane Feinstein press conference up in San Francisco.
Bundy was always scarier to me than everyone else. He just seemed to be someone that if he moved in next door, you’d have him over for a beer. Same thing with Wayne Williams in the Atlanta child murders. They just seem so normal. That wasn’t the case with Richard Ramirez.
I wonder if the forensics being so much better today, along with the 24-hour news stations, is why you don’t seem to have as many serial killers anymore. Either that, or they are just smarter about avoiding capture.
I’ve been keeping up on Wikipedia so I can get a handle on where everything happened. I moved to LA a few years ago and don’t know the geography extremely well. One of the things I picked up is that he threw his shoes off of the Golden Gate Bridge because he was following the case on TV. It sounds like he heard about the shoes being a significant clue from the Diane Feinstein press conference up in San Francisco.
i don’t know about that. One of the things I picked up on in the Ted Bundy documentary on NetFlix was how poor communication was between law enforcement in the late-70s. Maybe that had improved in the seven or eight years since Bundy, but I would doubt it. In the 70s, nearly all of the information swapped in cases between law enforcement in different communities was over the telephone and US Mail Service. That had probably changed a bit with the use of the fax machine, but there wasn;t the huge database repositories there are today. I bet if he had stayed out of California he wouldn’t have been captured for a while.
Bundy was always scarier to me than everyone else. He just seemed to be someone that if he moved in next door, you’d have him over for a beer. Same thing with Wayne Williams in the Atlanta child murders. They just seem so normal. That wasn’t the case with Richard Ramirez.
I wonder if the forensics being so much better today, along with the 24-hour news stations, is why you don’t seem to have as many serial killers anymore. Either that, or they are just smarter about avoiding capture.
Yes, although the woman that called in to say that her dad had befriended Rick at a Greyhound Station was the tip that led to that situation.
Based on what she was told, she was able to confirm that a .22 had been used in the crimes, which wasn't public knowledge.
Finding the stolen bracelet from one the murder scenes and interviewing the man that had received it from Frank is what led to the confession.
A few more early morning thoughts
a. His moving to San Francisco as part of his killing spree proved to be a big undoing. I believe that murder occurred on 8/18/85. That brought Falzon into the equation.
b. As much as Feinstein's mistake looks horrible in retrospect for the damage it would have done had he not been caught, the reality is that the press conference might have done a lot more good than bad.
Her holding the sketch up for the world to see played a huge role in the entire state of California knowing what that mother****er looked like and it helped leads to more calls/informants with information.
Should she have been told to keep her mouth shut? Yes. Should she have left out those important details? Yes.
Did she create more overall good than bad with her press conference? I'd argue yes. When he's caught 7 days later, it's partly because everyone in the street recognized him. That probably never happens if he doesn't go to San Francisco, which triggers all of the events that follow, which includes Feinstein's involvement. Her press conference might have freaked out the investigating cops, but it added a sense of urgency to the events that was long overdue.
Considering he was caught exactly one week after her press conference, it's hard to look back historically and say that she proved to be a net negative.
Part of the problem is that all of the agencies involved were trying to suppress the info and keep it quiet. You can make a case that this proved to be as dangerous and as much of a mistake as anything.
c. How in the hell did someone not communicate to Feinstein which details to not talk about? My goodness, how in the world did that happen? @sgtmoody, thoughts? Is that a chief of police issue with a lack of communication? Clearly, she was prepped on some level.
d. I'm not sure the doc does a great job of focusing on just how quickly it all comes together because the reality is that from the moment he kills in SF, his ass was in real trouble.
Timeline
8/18/85 -Kills Peter Pan (yes, real name) outside of San Francisco
8/23/85 - Feinstein holds press conference that the entire nation sees. Releases sketch photo.
8/24/85 - Ramirez drives to Mission Viejo in a stolen orange Toyota. James Romero, Jr.’s 13-year-old son hears Ramirez outside their home and wakes up his parents. Ramirez flees, but the family manages to glimpse the color and make of his car and part of the license plate number.
Ramirez then breaks into Bill Carns and Inez Erickson’s home. He shoots Carns three times in the head and tells Erikson he’s the Night Stalker and that she must swear to love Satan. After raping her, he tetlls her, “Tell them the Night Stalker was here.”
8/28/85 - Car is recovered from the 8/24 crime. A print is found that ID's Rameriz. Photo is released
and officials say when releasing it, “There will be no place you can hide.”
8/30/85 - Captured
a. His moving to San Francisco as part of his killing spree proved to be a big undoing. I believe that murder occurred on 8/18/85. That brought Falzon into the equation.
b. As much as Feinstein's mistake looks horrible in retrospect for the damage it would have done had he not been caught, the reality is that the press conference might have done a lot more good than bad.
Her holding the sketch up for the world to see played a huge role in the entire state of California knowing what that mother****er looked like and it helped leads to more calls/informants with information.
Should she have been told to keep her mouth shut? Yes. Should she have left out those important details? Yes.
Did she create more overall good than bad with her press conference? I'd argue yes. When he's caught 7 days later, it's partly because everyone in the street recognized him. That probably never happens if he doesn't go to San Francisco, which triggers all of the events that follow, which includes Feinstein's involvement. Her press conference might have freaked out the investigating cops, but it added a sense of urgency to the events that was long overdue.
Considering he was caught exactly one week after her press conference, it's hard to look back historically and say that she proved to be a net negative.
Part of the problem is that all of the agencies involved were trying to suppress the info and keep it quiet. You can make a case that this proved to be as dangerous and as much of a mistake as anything.
c. How in the hell did someone not communicate to Feinstein which details to not talk about? My goodness, how in the world did that happen? @sgtmoody, thoughts? Is that a chief of police issue with a lack of communication? Clearly, she was prepped on some level.
d. I'm not sure the doc does a great job of focusing on just how quickly it all comes together because the reality is that from the moment he kills in SF, his ass was in real trouble.
Timeline
8/18/85 -Kills Peter Pan (yes, real name) outside of San Francisco
8/23/85 - Feinstein holds press conference that the entire nation sees. Releases sketch photo.
8/24/85 - Ramirez drives to Mission Viejo in a stolen orange Toyota. James Romero, Jr.’s 13-year-old son hears Ramirez outside their home and wakes up his parents. Ramirez flees, but the family manages to glimpse the color and make of his car and part of the license plate number.
Ramirez then breaks into Bill Carns and Inez Erickson’s home. He shoots Carns three times in the head and tells Erikson he’s the Night Stalker and that she must swear to love Satan. After raping her, he tetlls her, “Tell them the Night Stalker was here.”
8/28/85 - Car is recovered from the 8/24 crime. A print is found that ID's Rameriz. Photo is released
and officials say when releasing it, “There will be no place you can hide.”
8/30/85 - Captured
Last edited:
Kolchak!! I actually bought the DVD of that show to watch with my kids.
My understanding is most of the time his victims were totally random in that he killed at whatever home he could get into. Most of his victims were random. What’s really incredible is how he let the kids he randomly molested go without killing them. It makes absolutely no sense that he did that, the way he was with everyone else. The dude was basically Satan himself, terrible, terrible human being.
Ketch, Feinstein just had to act like a big deal and show the area what all she knew. The San FranCisco police had many other times where they had problems with her office, it’s just this was the first time LA police had to deal with her. No ifs, ands or buts, she got absolutely lucky that she didn’t completely let him get away because of the stunt she pulled. That show also makes you really hate reporters like the lady there in LA. All she cared about was her story, not if she killed more people or not. She’s what gives good reporters a bad name.
It makes total sense.
As messed up as he was, he had a code.
It probably relates to his own childhood and its lost innocence.
Where the hell was mayor Thomas Bradley during all of this?
We can berate Feinstein for her mistakes, but it took one murder in her city and she was out in front of cameras addressing the biggest story in her state when I'm not sure I've ever heard of a single political figure in L.A. during the same time making the public's awareness to a serial killer a priority?
We can berate Feinstein for her mistakes, but it took one murder in her city and she was out in front of cameras addressing the biggest story in her state when I'm not sure I've ever heard of a single political figure in L.A. during the same time making the public's awareness to a serial killer a priority?
He died in prison because of the legal system and how it works regarding the death penalty.
Its very common for death-row inmates to sit on death row for decades while every legal remedy is exhausted. All at great expense to the tax payer.
It took more than one murder. Remember at the end, Ramirez told Falzon that he'd committed a double murder (he identified by the street name) that had never been solved. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there were others in San Fran that were never accounted for.
Luck doesn't excuse Feinstein's blunder. That was incredibly dumb of her, and everyone is lucky that Ramirez was either (a) too compelled to stop himself or (b) to dumb to skip town and set up shop elsewhere. She was incredibly lucky that her idiotic move didn't blow up in their faces and extend the killing spree or begin a new one elsewhere. Of course, I would say the SF police chief has an equal, if not greater, share of the blame because the mayor obviously needed some coaching on how to handle it.
Not to pile on Feinstein, but the SFPD and LAPD determined pretty quickly that the murder in SF was the Night Stalker. That connection was why she went on the news. It was an effort to notify the public the killer had moved to SF. Please don't make Feinstein out to be some genius for having a press conference in that situation.
Also, prior to the SF killing, the Night Stalker was all over the news in LA and there was a major intra agency task force set up in LA to find the killer. He had been operating in LA for many months.
The Doc did a really good job documenting the "screw ups" by the police/authorities (near misses would be a better way to say it). Just two examples: 1) the authorities could have had prints much earlier in the case, but screwed up getting them off a car, 2) the cops could of caught the dude at his dentist office months earlier, but pulled off the surveillance and incorrectly set up a "burglar alarm" at the dentist office they wanted the dentist to use to notify them if he showed up. Although, it was "good old fashioned police work" that solved it in the end.
I thought it was remarkable that they had his prints (once they finally had them) for a good time before they were able to ID him. This was because there wasn't a national database like there is for print matching today. Had that technology been available at the time, I think they could of identified him a month or more sooner than they did. The whole bit about the shoe print and the work the cops did on that was remarkable.
They ended up catching him because of some stolen jewelry he took from one of his victims. He gave that to a friend, who gave it to a friend (or some crap like that). Someone who ended up with this item turned it over to the police, and they subsequently traced it back to the killer. One of the cops had to beat the hell out of someone in the chain to actually get his full name. The cops then found the name/ID with a criminal record and matched those prints to one found on a stolen car, which was seen leaving a crime scene. This confirmed he was a primary suspect. At that point his picture was released and put on the front page of every major paper. Some dude spotted him on a city bus, and the rest is history.
Please don't pretend where I did any such thing.
There's no getting around the fact that there seems to be very little political presence in the story until the Feinstein errors occur. Why?
Again, where was Thomas Bradley during all of this?
The advancement of technology is staggering from the 80s to now.
a. No, it doesn't. I just don't blame her alone for such a blunder. From her chief of staff to the city police chief to city lawyers.... that mistake cannot happen.
b. I just find it fascinating who history chooses to remember for "almost" making a mistake that in the end had zero real impact on what happens afterwards.
It's a detail that history has chosen not to forget, but the presence of quite a few prominent faces are curiously absent throughout the entire story.
Ketch,
(my apologies for alleging you're a closet Feinsteiner)
You make a good point about the "political presence" in the story. Is that just the creative license these directors took? I honestly don't know.
I don't want to defend Bradley here, but I have to think he did some press conferences on the Night Stalker during this...didn't he? And the producers of the doc elected not to show them? I honestly don't know.
I can fully understand, from watching the doc, the impression that SF took this "much more seriously" than LA. However, I think that is more due to a realization of authorities of "Oh Sh!t, the Night Stalker is in SF now, we need to let everyone know!!"
Its a fascinating story and a great watch. Like many of these shows it raises a lot more questions in my mind than it answers.
I'd love to know more about the politics in the LA police force/jurisdictions that caused problems with the investigation, as well as the killers upbringing, just to name a few.
(my apologies for alleging you're a closet Feinsteiner)
You make a good point about the "political presence" in the story. Is that just the creative license these directors took? I honestly don't know.
I don't want to defend Bradley here, but I have to think he did some press conferences on the Night Stalker during this...didn't he? And the producers of the doc elected not to show them? I honestly don't know.
I can fully understand, from watching the doc, the impression that SF took this "much more seriously" than LA. However, I think that is more due to a realization of authorities of "Oh Sh!t, the Night Stalker is in SF now, we need to let everyone know!!"
Its a fascinating story and a great watch. Like many of these shows it raises a lot more questions in my mind than it answers.
I'd love to know more about the politics in the LA police force/jurisdictions that caused problems with the investigation, as well as the killers upbringing, just to name a few.
Did the docuseries give credit to Feinstein for the capture? Ramirez’s mugshot was released by the authorities after the police identified him from stealing the car in SoCal and having his name from the stolen bracelet.His face was then all over the newspapers and television news. That is why people recognized him.
Before the Feinstein news conference the best lead the police had was the Avila shoes.
Yeah, I guess I couldn't sleep last night and ended up going down the worm hole on this topic.
I can't find anywhere on the Internet that ever mentions him having any presence in this story before his arrest.
The fact that it's never mentioned in the doc had me wondering if there were other folks who were criticized for their roles. I can't find anything at all.
No, the docuseries didn't give credit to Feinstein. In fact she took a lot of flack from the LA detectives for releasing that info.
Just to set the timeline...
The presser with Feinstein, where she mentioned the shoes (and almost blew the case), was after a single murder in SF. That murder occurred after the Night Stalker had been terrorizing LA for several months.
My assumption: Ramirez was getting bored in LA, or feeling too much heat (he was watching/following the news). Thus he moved to SF, where he had ties/history. In fact, he killed someone in SF before he started in LA. However, that connection gets little press, but is mentioned in the docuseries.
My assumption: I haven't watched the entire thing, so I'm guessing here. The whole presser with Feinstein was to let the public know the Night Stalker was in SF. I imagine during the press conference a question came up "How do you know its the same guy". Feinstein then responded with an explanation about the shoes to prove to the press that they knew, without a doubt, that it was the Night Stalker. She also mentioned writing on the wall, etc.
Fact: Ramirez ditched the shoes, and immediately returned to LA. He committed a few additional crimes, and was then captured.
Agree with (a). As to (b), the documentary was a story of Ramirez, as well as his pursuers. I think the Feinstein bit is an important part of telling the cops' story since at the time they thought the investigation was toast and Ramirez was gone (as he very well could have been).
I'm just saying in retrospect there were some awful decisions made on numerous levels, which led to evidence to become ruined or let Rameriz get away.... and no one talks about the people that made those decisions, or how high the accountability for those mistakes should have gone.
I agree 100% with this.
There was a lot of this sort of thing mentioned in the series, but it was glossed over for the most part. The three biggest issues that stood out to me:
1. The fact it took so long for the LA jurisdictions to get on the same page that one dude was doing all this. The lead Hispanic detective (I can't recall his name) on the case was ridiculed for sharing this theory early on. This, I can sort of understand. He was a new detective, and very young for the roll. I can see other detectives telling him "Relax kid, not every murder is a serial killer"
2. The mismanagement of the first car and the prints on it was astounding. This is just incompetence. You've got a potential lead on a known serial killer and you do nothing?
3. The fact the surveillance was stopped on the dentist office was also astounding. Again, only real lead is the killer has horrible teeth. All the victims said this, dental records confirmed it. Another doctor said he'd need work soon cause of an impacted tooth. This is a guy that's killed several people and abducted kids (this is known at this point), and you don't have someone sitting in the dentist office...just in case he shows up?
The complete lack of cooperation of the various jurisdictions in LA was a sub-plot to the entire series, and it wasn't delved into enough. At the very least, there is a lot more there to tell the story of. I think that issue was the driving factor in all three of those issues above.
I wonder if Law Enforcement looks at those issues as training...sort of a case study.
Cops kind of protect their own and that's what likely happened here.
But man... I have soooooo many questions.
