..
.
.
With husband Jorge
Tomorrow morning, if diminutive, 39-year old World Health Organization consultant, psychologist, rape victim and mother Dr. Norma Patricia Esparza doesn’t plead guilty to an (unspecified lesser) charge admitting responsibility for the murder of her rapist back in 1995, prosecutor Michael Murray will have her arrested on ACTUAL murder charges, after which he gleefully promises “a FUN TRIAL!”
Now, most of the following comes from Dr. Esparza and her urbane husband, Dr. Jorge Mancillas (of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria) … but having met them, and knowing all about the overzealousness and sadism of Tony Rackauckas’ prosecutors, I give them the benefit of the doubt until we all see a lot more evidence to the contrary.
Norma’s life seems at first glance to be an embodiment of the American dream – to live her first five years in a tiny rural Mexican town with no sewage or running water, come to SanTana and attend the public schools, earn a merit-based scholarship to a top New Hampshire boarding school, get a PhD in psychology and end up working for the World Health Organization in Geneva (and live in a French suburb of that Swiss town.)
But, behind the scenes, there was darkness. Sexually abused from age 5-12 by her father, who also beat her mother, she learned to suffer quietly and keep things to herself. Same thing when she was raped at the age of 20 in her dorm room by one hapless Gonzalo Ramirez.
A bit later she made the mistake of confiding the rape to her then-boyfriend, (allegedly) hotheaded Gianni Van. Feeling the rape to be an assault to his manhood, he resolved, with a few conspirators, to avenge it (allegedly.) According to this DA press release from last year, Norma did point out Gonzalo to Gianni at a “Mexican bar near Warner and Grand,” without knowing he had murder on his mind. Hey – I think I know that bar!
So one April night in 1995, Gonzalo was allegedly dragged kicking and screaming by Van and three accomplices – including Kody Tran who died last year in a shootout with a SWAT team – to Kody’s Costa Mesa shop “Accurate Transmissions,” where they proceeded to beat him half to death. After a while they had Norma driven over so that she and the bloodied Gonzalo could see each other. She didn’t witness them later allegedly finishing him off with stabs and blows to the head.
Alleged murderer Gianni Van.
In fact she didn’t know he was actually killed until the police told her. She was never a suspect; the police emphasized how brutal the murder was and how dangerous Van and his circle were, and yet they offered her no protection. Meanwhile, Van’s concerns shifted to fears of the straitlaced Norma turning him in; he warned her that “if she ever fucked him over he would do the same thing to her,” and then pressured her into a nine-month sham marriage so that she couldn’t be forced to testify against him.
With Anastasia.
With a lot of things to keep silent about now – childhood abuse, a rape, involvement in a murder – Norma went on with her life, working as a counselor at USC, earning her PhD, working on global health policy in Europe, eventually meeting and marrying Dr. Mancillas and giving birth to darling, now 4-year-old, Anastasia. Lawyer friends she confided in advised her to keep all of this to herself; by now she was in legal danger from keeping silent this long; AND Van and his friends were still at large, dangerous, and well aware of all the places in the OC where her family lived.
SEVENTEEN YEARS LATER – July of last year – Norma was unexpectedly arrested in Massachusetts. After being assured that Van and his three accomplices were all either in custody or dead, she told the authorities EVERYTHING. And they let her go, assuring her that she was no longer a suspect. She has been co-operating with the law since October 2012, and has been allowed to travel back and forth to Europe to do her important global health work.
But NOW, all of a sudden – yesterday, I believe – she gets this ultimatum? To accept responsibility for this murder (pleading guilty to some unspecified charge to which she claims innocence) or else be arrested for murder and go through what the prosecutor crows will be a “FUN TRIAL?” Suddenly she’s dangerous after being allowed to travel all over the world for eleven months? Asked why now, after a year of refusing to talk to her attorneys, this sudden development, prosecutor Murray responds “Because she’s a MURDERESS.” What kind of new evidence could there be? The Orange Juice Blog remains skeptical, and we will be there tomorrow morning for sure.
Damn!
Breaking news! From the Orange Juice.
Maybe it was the W.H.O.
Did You ever think about that?
Have you tried to get an interview with Todd Spitzer and ask how he would be different form T Track as DA? Also, ask him how he will perpetuate or dismantle the Police State we have become?
Nah, once he found out that I had DUI’s … he doesn’t like to be seen in public with me any more. That’s another one of his big causes.
We talk on the phone or e-mail once in a while … I think the only advantage is he MIGHT sometimes go after political corruption which T-Rack NEVER does … but in other ways he’s even scarier.
I like watching him and writing about him though, what a character. He has fun cameos in all these recent stories of mine…
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/11/toll-lane-uprising-2-delay-kabuki-and-the-staggering-arrogance-of-chairman-winterbottom/
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/11/o-frabjous-day-our-alt-weekly-correctly-identifies-our-scariest-people-we-elaborate/
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/01/so-apparently-it-was-the-irvine-great-park-all-along-who-knew/
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/01/john-williams-agonistes/
and, even though he’s in disguise as The Moorlach… http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/04/hallucinating-teens-rescued-from-six-hour-ordeal-in-mile-square-park/
Why hasn’t anyone checked Gianni’s past? If one person would’ve looked into it they’d really question Norma! Gianni is absolutely NOT a gang member, he is a small dude, very sweet, into fashion! Yep, fashion! That’s how he and Norma met, at the mall! He had NO police record, zero! He has always been a total grooming himself freak, and a slow thinker, meaning it always took forever to make a decision because he’s an over thinker! It drove me crazy! So hearing him called the quick thinking master mind is untrue! Also he isn’t some poor kid from seedy part of Santa Ana , he’s a middle class youngest kid who hung out and surfed in Newport Beach.
Vern, please forgive my using this forum for the following!
Rose, please email me as I’d like to ask you a question or two regarding
the case.
stevemax_1990@yahoo.com
Thank you!
Greetings! I have just been made aware of this case may 2014. Stunned! Because I have been friends with Gianni Van (who’s real name is Tam) since high school. Yes we have stayed in contact through out the years, I had lived in Aspen for 5 years then back to Ca but we’ve always hung out talked etc. what I wanted to inform you on is….here we go! He Gianni, is not NOT, the horrific monster everyone is portraying him to be! He is one of the greatest people I know! He is not nor has he EVER been in a gang! I cannot tell you how freaked out I am when I heard about this!
Thank you Rose for your welcome comments regarding Gianni and this entire case in general! Finally a voice of reason! Unfortunately Vern, you have proven yourself to be completely inept when it comes to gathering facts! You have, however, proven yourself to be very proficient in spreading hack commentary and bias trash worthy of the National Enquirer! Have you ever even met Gianni Van? Has he been proven a murderer in a court of law? Have you observed this alleged monster-like hotheaded behavior of his to which you clearly subscribe? No, he has not and you have not, yet you feel completely comfortable calling him, like all the other irresponsible bloggers and reporters out there, a monster and murderer. Did you see him and the accomplices drag Gonzalo kicking and screaming? No you did NOT! I find it very ironic that you reveal since “having met them [Norma and her husband,] and knowing all about the overzealousness and sadism of Tony Rackauckas’ prosecutors, [you] give them the benefit of the doubt until we all see a lot more evidence to the contrary.” Wow, where is your suspension of judgment regarding Mr. Van? You base an entire story on the statement of one person: the very person whose entire survival hangs on demonizing as much as possible Gianni Van and the other accomplices. Shame on all of you!
Like Rose, I DO know Gianni and he has been a close friend of mine for over 15 years and is one of the most calm, peaceful and giving people I have EVER met. He has NEVER been or associated with a gang member, nor has he ever been a “hothead” or revenge seeker! As Rose mentioned, he is barely five feet tall and possesses the disposition of a shy saint, a fashionista saint perhaps but a saint nonetheless.
Yes, rape and murder are both heinous crimes beyond comprehension, the perpetrators of which should be punished to the full extent of the law and the victims of which deserving our complete unconditional support. That does not mean, however, Mrs. Esparza can simply make a claim of rape, disappear to another continent, start a new life and then expect to be treated with total impunity and sympathy when this horrible story again rears its ugly head! And speaking of stories, hers has more holes than a sieve and holds water just as well! Wake up people, there’s a lot more to this story and Mrs Espaza than is being revealed. While Norma fled, Gianni never moved to another country to start a new life. He stayed right where he’d always been, maintaining close and constant contact with his family and friends and being a responsible contributing member of society. While this entire story is tragic, plain and simple, and may likely leave a little girl without her mother I am profoundly saddened that the media has played so well into the hands of sensationalism for the sake of selling a few more papers. Last I checked, the US constitution grants each and every citizen the right to claim the status of innocence until guilt is proven. Granting such status is precisely where you Mr. Nelson have failed miserably. How’s about waiting for all the evidence and facts to be heard in a court of law before spreading more of your biased BS into the blogosphere! Anything less than that reveals you as the hack you are! Again, shame on you and all of those out there who continue to spread your bias agendas.
I’d like to thank you Vern for not deleting my comments! Please try and continue keeping an open mind. I’ve been in touch with Gianni since this nightmare began and he is absolutely devastated. Luckily, he has the full and ongoing support of his family and dear friends who will remain by his side until and after justice is served.
Crazy story.
In the upcoming battle between Rackauckas and Spitzer the principal loser will be justice.
I’m trying to interest Spitzer in this … cuz it MIGHT help draw attention? It’s like using Godzilla against Mothra, and then hunkering down and crossing your fingers.
Todd made his bones by being an advocate of victims rights. He still does that to raise his profile. This lady is just the kind of case he is supposed to aid the woman being put in this position.
…is kind of what I was thinking. I sent him this story. If he decides to run with it… then consider it ran with.
Spitzer won’t come anywhere near this case. The victim was murdered.
I’m confused and shocked. WTF? Aren’t there better things to do than go after her?
It will be interesting to see what they think they have on her, if all the relevant facts are as represented here.
To say, “It’ll be a fun trial” is irresponsible and pretty cold too. I can’t imagine a jury is going to see it that way…perhaps not the voters either.
Did T-Rack make that has a public statement? Or was it a private conversation?
It was the prosecutor, Michael Murray, as I wrote, twice. In conference with the defendant and her lawyer. That’s when they say the nastiest shit.
I don’t want to conclude, based on the statements of one side, that the behavior of the OC DA’s office is appalling. So I look forward to some indication from the DA’s office about why their behavior here is NOT appalling. I’d say that the burden has by now shifted onto them.
…bearing in mind a long history of appallingness.
That’s much easier for you and I to say than an officer of the court, Vern.
After seeing the news on TV when I got home, hearing a statement from both the DA and a non answer from the defendant, it would seem to be an arguable situation.
I think it will be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable of a doubt to a jury.
what was the non-answer from the defendant to?
There ARE things defendants’ lawyers tell them not to answer.
Paraphrasing, if she ever told them to stop…her answer was, she would rather not answer that question. It wasn’t the best answer I’ve heard and she did looked pained by both the question and her answer.
I can totally understand that someone might be so fearful that they wouldn’t be able or feel able, to stop such an incident and might feel that by saying anything that would potentially put them into jeopardy under such circumstances.
I still think it difficult to convince 12 people that she should be imprisoned.
She sure has shitty taste in men.
1. She didn’t choose her rapist.
2. Dr. Mancillas was a GREAT choice.
Gianni Van? Okay. She was 21.
21 is an adult. Hooking up with a member of a Vietnamese gang shows appalling judgment.
However, bad judgment doesn’t equate to a murder rap. She was (apparently) complicit after the fact in a (maybe) a felony assault (if we believe her story). If the DA has more he’d better show PDQ it or it will be another embarrassment.
On the other hand, this is OC. People can be convicted of anything.
Oh, to be clear, I used the word “gang” on my own to describe the three or four friends of Van who helped with the murder. I don’t know that he was part of what we would think of as a “Vietnamese gang.” And one of the suspects was Caucasian.
Okay, I have changed it to “circle.”
David Zenger: “Hooking up with a member of a Vietnamese gang shows appalling judgment.” And you know this to be fact how exactly?
So you’re saying hooking up with a Vietnamese gang member doesn’t show appalling judgment?
Whether she did and whether he is one doesn’t alter the validity of my comment. For discussion purposes I was willing to agree to stipulated facts as presented in Vern’s post.
Of course the whole story is utterly bizarre and littered with “facts” that really stretch credulity.
Hi David..To be clear, of course hooking up with a member of any gang show appalling judgment. My comment was referencing the apparent presumption by all on this blog other than Rose and myself that Mr. Van was, among other things described here, a member of a Vietnamese gang. Interestingly, Rose and I myself are the only ones here who have both known Gianni for a long time and have each been close friends with him. I don’t know Rose but our accounts of Gianni and his character are very similar. I realize like most you were “willing to agree to stipulated facts as presented in Vern’s post” but therein lies the tragedy and basis of my comments. There have been no facts yet presented other than coercive statements by the Santa Ana police and the testimony of Mrs. Esparza. All I’m asking is to take this into consideration when tossing around words that can be eternally damning to a person’s character.
My original comment was presented with the conditional tense implied. I found it hard to give anybody credibility in this tale.
Your comments are well-taken. And obviously somebody has got this thing most of 180 degrees wrong.
Thanks for hearing me out, David. I was admittedly upset the other day and was trying to get people to take a step back and broaden the conversation. As anonster mentioned, I just hope all involved get a fair trial with good representation.
Just a few thoughts;
How did Dr. Esparza know the name of her attacker?
Did she know it at the time or learn it after the fact?
Did she report the rape?
Vigilante justice is not justice, does anybody here think that Gonzalo Ramirez didn’t deserve a fair trial?
How old was Ramirez when he was murdered?
What was Ramirez’s backstory, was he too abused as a child?
How do we think Ramirez’s family has dealt with his brutal death and unsolved murder all these years?
Did Dr. Esparza bother to find out what happened to Ramirez after she saw how brutally beaten he was and if so when?
How long did Dr. Esparza keep quiet?
Did anybody go to prison for Ramirez’s murder?
If Dr. Esparza and her avengers were white and the accused/murder victim black would we look at this situation differently?
As sympathetic as Dr. Esparza is, she did finger Ramirez to her violent boyfriend, saw that he had been beaten (and eventually) knew he was murdered and didn’t do anything about it. There are a lot of people doing time in prison for less.
A lot of your answers are in last year’s DA report that I linked to in my story (which Art put onto his New Santa Ana blog last year, thanks Art.)
She and Ramirez were not total strangers; if her story is true, they had breakfast together and he walked her to her dorm room, where he then raped her. Even so, I’m not aware that she knew his full name that day; it’s been public record since they found him in a bag in Irvine after the murder.
Nobody is saying it was a GOOD thing that she kept silent about the murder; just that it’s understandable. She was being threatened, and had a history of being victimized and keeping silent. (Again, if we believe her.)
The racial thing is funny, this whole affair was post-racial in a modern way: the rape victim, rapist and murder victim were all hispanic, and the avengers were Asian and white.
Yes, Van and a female accomplice are in prison for Ramirez’ murder; I’m not clear if the white guy is still on the lam. The one other Asian guy, owner of the transmission shop, died in a big-old shootout with a SWAT team rather than be arrested.
GUYS, I’ve decided not to go to the hearing this morning after all; the real press have obviously picked up on this, and they are PAID to park in downtown Santa Ana, go through the metal detectors, spend all day in a courtroom, ask questions and pore through documents. I’d rather finish my CD today, and follow up on an Orange gang injunction story and a Diane Harkey story, and look for piano work. Just wanted us to break the story yesterday, since a fortuitous circumstance brought me in contact with these people yesterday morning.
Please link to any follow-up stories, guys.
You make some cogent points — but I don’t think that they add up to a case of murder.
Noting once again that I don’t do criminal law and don’t have to know this stuff, but: I expect that the reason for the murder charge here is that unlike most anything else it does not have a statute of limitations. If the appropriate charge would be something less than that (and my bet is that if this had been discovered 16 years ago it would have), then I don’t like the idea of them charging her with murder to try to force a plea to something less than that, just because they can.
(Doesn’t even asking “did she report the rape?” bother you? If not, then so what?)
I think asking whether she reported the rape in this case is very important as the alleged rapist was murdered on her say so.
We want to cut Dr. Esparza slack because she was abused as a child, but what about Ramirez?
If say, they met at the Santa Ana club and then went back to her dorm room all the way in Pomona (this is just conjecture from the Register story) it wouldn’t be that far-fetched to think that Ramirez had expectations of sex. Yes, we all know that no-means-no, but date rape is as old as time and most women have experienced it to some degree or another, that is not to excuse it, but rather put a realistic face on it.
The difference here is that Dr. Esparza managed to inflict violent revenge on this man.
We don’t know Ramirez,what was his version of events and what were his perceptions? Maybe he was raised in a very macho household, maybe he saw his father abuse his mother, maybe he was abused, maybe he didn’t realize that no-means-no. Would we cut Ramirez slack because of his background?
The reason this bothers me so much is that Dr. Esparza set this all in motion and was judge, jury and (technically) executioner.
Wait, are you imagining that anybody here, OR Dr Esparza, is saying that Ramirez deserved what he got?
She fingered him to her violent boyfriend, she saw him beaten and bleeding, she kept silent knowing that he was murdered because of her.
She, has some culpability.
some… probably
What of that do you think adds up to a murder charge in and of itself, without evidence of, say, intent?
If the issue is culpability, I think that it’s already been handled by this PR. Deterrence has worked: women with similar knowledge of such a crime will surely be less likely to report it to the police, even after almost two decades. So — mission accomplished, I suppose. We don’t need the “fun trial.”
Sorry for the late reply Greg, I’ve been out all day.
If you read the DA’s report she first pointed out Ramirez to her violent and “frightening” boyfriend and she was in one of the cars following Ramirez where she must have witnessed his beating and kidnapping before her boyfriend told her to leave the scene.
Later she went to the auto shop and saw him even more brutalized.
I wonder when she found out he had been murdered, she claims it was when the police questioned her. If she had come clean right then her boyfriend and his gang would’ve been arrested and she would’ve been safe…in jail.
We put people in jail all the time for murder even if they personally didn’t commit the murder. One Charles Manson comes to mind.
This woman was complicit in the murder of Gonzalo Ramirez. I wonder when Ms. Humanitarian was going to get around to seeking justice for Gonzalo Ramirez. She’d already waited 17 fucking years. Dr. Esparza was living in Europe, was she still afraid for her life from some poor SA gang members?
I think Dr. Esparza has looked out for Dr. Esparza.
Yeah she’s moved on and done well and really, what’s a little murder in one’s past anyway?
Where did you get the idea that jail is a “safe” place for someone who (by your theory) just ratted on a violent gang member and will be a presumed witness for the prosecution?
Yes, we do jail people for murder on the basis of accomplice liability. Yes, Manson is a great example of that. However, to do so, one must prove several necessary elements of a case (which was readily done in the case of Manson.) Those elements, so far as I can tell, are absent from the present situation.
What evidence do you have that this (by her plausible assertion) rape victim knew about the murder beyond your inadmissible supposition? What evidence, at this point, is even possible to imagine?
That’s why this would be a waste of time rather than a “fun trial.”
Remember, she fingered Ramirez to her scary, violent boyfriend. What did she imagine was going to happen to Ramirez after she pointed him out and after when her boyfriend had kidnapped and beaten him? But, but … she was scared. Really, sounds like events went exactly how she wanted them.
She had two opportunities to stop this murder; after witnessing the initial beating by his car and after seeing him in the auto shop.Bullshit on HER safety, she chose to do NOTHING while Ramirez was being beaten to death with a meat cleaver!
And why didn’t she say anything during any one of those 17 fucking years?
I’ll tell you why, because she is and was guilty of being an accomplice to MURDER and the truth was too inconvenient, it might have interrupted her new life.
Oh, but she was abused and raped (her story, the accused is dead) so she deserves a free pass, she can’t be held responsible for anything. She’s just a poor, little abused victim (cue the violins) she just deserves pity and a support group and Ramirez, he’s dead so he doesn’t matter and neither does his family.
Bullshit!
I understand your argument. I don’t begrudge you your position, even though you’re connecting some dots with supposition rather than the actual evidence that would be required in court. That’s understandable from a layperson. I expect something different, though, from a seasoned prosecutor.
I have no love lost for Tony R. nor am I a big law and order freak demanding long sentences, etc., but I think common sense tells us there’s more to this story.
It’s always easier (and human nature) to side with the survivors in a situation as they can make up any version of events they want just like George Zimmerman did.
Sometimes it’s the truth and sometimes it isn’t but the victim never gets to give their side of events.
If you read the DA’s report they are (I think) charging her and the gang with conspiring to kill Ramirez.
And speaking of the “gang” do you think any of them are guilty? Does Dr. Esparza get a free pass because she’s “changed”? Reading about the case it sounds like the DA has “new evidence”, could be someone is now talking. Dr. Esparza sounds like she was involved as much as any of them, but she’s smart, she has herself labeled as “rape victim” rather than co-conspirator in a murder.
I’d have a lot more sympathy for Dr. Esparza if it had been her coming forward (after all she was SAFE in France) trying to bring justice for Ramirez and peace to his family. Now everything she says just sounds like a self serving lie.
I wonder does knowing she married Van after she knew that he killed Ramirez change anything? That’s why no one was ever charged with murder because they couldn’t testify against each other.
And before you yell “sham marriage” (again Dr. Esparza’s self serving version), that “sham marriage” lasted 9 YEARS not 9 months.
Regarding her marriage to Van, I think common sense tells us there’s more to this story as well. Probably something involving violent threats.
But, again — how does such a marriage prove her to be guilty of murder? Obstruction of justice? Maybe — but the statute of limitations is probably expired on that (or I presume it would be part of the charges leveled against her.) But we’re not talking about that: we’re talking solely about the prospect of evidence being obtained and admitted sufficient to convict her of murder.
That bar is appropriately high. And if the crime is “rape victim understandably distrustful of police ability to protect her doesn’t go to them but does tell her boyfriend about it,” then without substantially more that at this point would pretty much have to come from her own confession I don’t see how you get to a charge of murder that even gets to the jury.
I get it: you want at least rough justice. So does the DA. But to me, threatening someone with a murder charge that you know you can’t possibly make (if my suspicion that that’s what’s happening here is correct) in order to get someone to plead guilty to a crime for which the statute of limitations has expired is an abuse of the legal system.
If you want to deter others from doing likewise, then go ahead and ravage her character. You’ve already got a head start. But I cannot adequately express to you how much this “it’ll be a fun trial!” gambit rankles me as an officer of the court.
We may just have to leave our disagreement at that.
Her husband told me nine months, I see the Times reported nine years. Maybe I heard wrong, maybe the Times heard wrong, maybe the husband was misled by her or misspoke or lied! I have seen papers like the Times get details wrong just as often as I do.
She obviously wasn’t living with him all that time…
It sounds like her co-conspirators are accusing her of participating in the planning of Ramirez’s murder.
From the SA police report;
… “On December 6, 2012 a witness was interviewed who knew Gries in the mid 1990’s and that he was working for and living at a transmission shop in Costa Mesa owned by Kody Tran. The witness could not recall the year but said it was approximately fifteen years ago when they witnessed the kidnapping of Gonzalo Ramirez. The witness Gries, Kody Tran, and Diane Tran met Gianni Van and his girlfriend, who she could not name, at Kody Tran’s shop in Costa Mesa. The purpose of the meeting was to go to a Mexican bar in the area of Grand and Warner in Santa Ana so Van’s girlfriend could identify an individual who had allegedly assaulted her. All of the parties proceeded to the location in two vehicles. One was a white van owned by Kody Tran and used for his business and a small compact car. While at the club Van’s girlfriend pointed out a male Hispanic subject who she claimed had assaulted her. When the male left the bar they followed him in the two vehicles. An unnamed witness said she and Gries were in the car and followed the white van, which contained everyone else. At an intersection not far from the bar the white van rear ended the vehicle, which contained the victim Gonzalo Ramirez, and another male Hispanic subject. Both vehicles pulled over and when Ramirez got out to inspect the damage several subjects from the white van exited as well. At this time Ramirez was physically assaulted by the occupants of the white van. The witness exited the vehicle she was in and Gries told her to get back in the vehicle. Shortly after Norma Esparza entered the vehicle and Gries told her to drive away from the scene. The witness drove Esparza to a bar located in close proximity to the transmission shop owned by Kody Tran. They were there for a short time when Gries called her and told her to take Esparza to the shop. When they arrived at the shop Gries met her and told her to come upstairs and see what they had done to this guy, and that if she ever “****** him over” he would do the same thing to her. The unnamed witness claimed she did not go upstairs to see the individual but that Esparza did go up to confirm the identity of Ramirez as the individual who had assaulted her.
– See more at: http://nixle.com/alert/4927769/#sthash.0aEJaUnr.dpuf”
I don’t want “rough justice” but I don’t think trying this woman based on what I’ve read is unreasonable. She sounds like she used to hang with gangsters and lived that life, now she doesn’t and she’d like us all to forget the past and murder victim Gonzalo Ramirez. I hope she gets good representation and has a fair trial.
It sounds like you have swallowed her version of events hook, line and sinker. She’s a rape victim, hence she has no culpability in any of the events leading up to Ramirez’s murder. She definitely is winning in the court of public opinion, let’s see if she can win in court.
*Why don’t you ever address the 17 fucking years she kept silent?
Why did she keep silent? Because she had no obligation not to — and she may have feared something like this.
(Don’t worry, the next woman in this situation will keep silent, thanks to this brilliant move.)
As for the testimony of the unnamed witness — that seems like a pretty good example of why we have a statute of limitations.
I have another question for you, anonster: if one of my daughters is raped by someone that they can identify, should they avoid telling me (or negligently allowing me to find out) because of the possibility that I might kill the rapist? How sure do they have to be that I’m not going to kill the rapist before they’re off the hook?
That’s the sort of question that this case raises in my mind — but I don’t get the sense that you’re struggling with it.
Vern,
You’re right about newspapers getting the facts wrong, could be, but they did say they divorced in 2004. 1995-2004= 9 years.
“Why did she keep silent? Because she had no obligation not to — and she may have feared something like this.”
Not my definition of a good person.
“(Don’t worry, the next woman in this situation will keep silent, thanks to this brilliant move.)”
What lesson? Doling out a little brutal vigilante justice and then playing the victim card?
“As for the testimony of the unnamed witness — that seems like a pretty good example of why we have a statute of limitations.”
Yeah, witnesses…who needs ’em. And after all it was just a brutal violent murder, who cares if anyone is ever brought to justice.
She would have had ample reason not to report a case of rape, given what prosecutors and police did and still do with that.
So while you have conjecture, you don’t — and won’t, because everyone but her is dead — have evidence that, for example, she was just a jilted lover arranging for a contract murder using the currency of sex. (Getting one’s friends and family to punish a rapist is also “as old as time” — but it doesn’t mean that she demanded, desired, or even had reason to expect a fatality.)
You do have an arguably plausible theory of what might have happened, but it cannot possibly lead to evidence without the threat that, for example, that she could be prosecuted for a plausible lesser charge on which the statute of limitations has surely by now expired.
This scenario is a pretty good example of why we have statute of limitations in the first place!
I really don’t get it. What possible evidence could they have? They’re going to try to convict for a life sentence using her voluntary testimony almost two decades after the fact?
Sounds like a plan!
More thoughts and questions after reading the OCRegister article;
She met him in a bar in Santa Ana, he “assaulted” her in her dorm room at Pomona College, was this the same night or a different night?
Did she have a roommate or was there a witness or a confidant at the time who can back up her story?
Was the alleged assault violent or was it a case of different expectations or even just “regret” or maybe just covering Dr. Esparza’s ass? Of course, we’ll have to take Dr. Esparza’s word on this as the young(?) man in question was brutally murdered.
Funny how Vern and the OCRegister don’t mention much about Ramirez’s background, his age or his life story, remember he’s the REAL victim in this case. He was hunted down, terrorized, kidnapped, beaten (then shown to the oh-so-innocent Dr. Esparza) before he was stabbed and beaten to death.
This man was murdered because Dr. Esparza said he raped her. We already know that she didn’t have good judgement at that age, it’s not that far fetched that the “rape” story could have been cover for her “knowing” Ramirez in the eyes of her violent boyfriend or maybe this was as she said, rape. Unfortunately Ramirez is not here to defend himself and give his take on the event.
All I know is if I were Ramirez’s mother, I would want Dr. Esparza’s head on a spit.
Oh – and as she was saying all yesterday (if we’re inclined to take her seriously) what she wants is justice for not only herself but also Ramirez, and that she has never believed that humans should die at the hands of other humans.
Well, isn’t that a very nice sentiment, 17 years after the fact?
Touche!
This has gotten “international attention” – glad I didn’t go! But Orange Juice BROKE THE STORY.
Times report: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-professor-arrest-20131121,1,2402005,full.story#axzz2lJfvFtzH
It’s “voluntary manslaughter” they want her to plead guilty to; otherwise she’s fighting one felony count of special circumstances murder during the commission of a kidnapping. She’s out on 300 grand bail.
newsflash i’m told her bail was revoked, she’s in custody. As imperfect as she was, the jury won’t find her guilty of murder, this’ll just be another waste of our money.
Agreed. No way this sticks.
I seem to recall the cops who killed Kelly Thomas got $25,000 bail, or something like that.
Still, maybe they think she’ll head for France.
Very strange story and on the surface it seems outrageous. Have they now hired Bartlett or something at the DA’s office. He hates rape victims. Have you reached out for comment from the DA’s office? No rush, I would like them to focus on former officers Ramos and Cicinelli for the next few weeks at least.
I was there when Dr Norma Patricia Esparza and her husband Dr Jose Mancillas spoke at Los Amigos this past Wednesday.
I asked her two questions:
1) Have the Statute of Limitations expired? (NO).
2) Could SOMEONE corroborate her rape allegation? (She said she told the college but they never reported it to police.)
and I suggested they look at VAWA (Violence Against Women Act).
I left her a message yesterday (The number she provided), wanted to learn more from her in the event we decided to support her case, through the Human Trafficking Survivors Foundation since we are aware of other women who are VICTIMS of a crime and are instead treated as ACCESSORIES to a crime, and they serve lengthy prison sentences. (Maria Suarez, LA, trafficked at 16, someone killed her abuser, she spent 22 years in prison; Sarah Kruzan, Riverside, abused and trafficked at 11-16 years of age, served 19 years – just released; Rosalinda a victim of domestic violence served several years in prison.)
It appears Dr Esparza was a victim of a rape, but then she went out seeking a revenge. Perhaps, she never expected this would translate into murder.
Things that don’t seem right:
1) Dr Esparza and her husband claimed, if I recall correctly, that she was facing Murder with special circumstances, and therefore the DEATH PENALTY. (but so far I have seen mention of a LIFE Sentence if found guilty – Was this to gather more sympathy for her case? (She was offered a PLEA DEAL of 3 years prison)
2) Dr Esparza did not mention at Los Amigos that there was a FEMALE witness with the group the night they went looking for Gonzalo Ramirez, and found him. JULIE ANN ROJAS, was the former girlfriend of one of the attackers of the group. JULIE ANN ROJAS could have helped corroborate her rape allegation. (although it is possible she did mention it, because I stepped off for a minute.)
3) Apparently to investigators she claimed she visited El Cortez bar twice; to Grand Jury she claimed visited only once.
I think, even as a rape victim, IN THE END IT MAY BE BETTER FOR HER TO ACCEPT THE 3 year prison for her participation in pointing out Gonzalo Ramirez, which ended up resulting in his kidnapping, and torture (she was present during the kidnapping and saw that he had been beat and saw him bound); and then she “learned” he had been killed, but did nothing to report the crime.
my comments and observations above, are only my personal opinion, and not those of any group. paco
mention of Julie Ann Rojas – Witness to planning, abduction, and knowledge of beating of Gonzalo Ramirez.
LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-professor-arrest-20131121,0,6244304.story?
page=2&dlvrit=104530&track=rss#axzz2lOHWllEL
unnamed FEMALE Witness:
http://nixle.com/alert/4927769/
Murder has no statute of limitations, Paco. I believe that, by contrast, the lesser crime to which they would apparently like her to plead (and the crime that she almost surely did commit, obstruction of justice) do.
(Good time to note here again for the record: I’m not a criminal lawyer; the above is not intended to be taken legal advice.)
If she’s not going to be convicted, why accept the plea? But as I write, I’ll tell you what would make some sense to me: for her to be offered a plea on obstruction of justice: no jail time, but loads and loads of community service where she can go around to schools and tell people what the police want them to do in case they are raped. That makes at least some sense.
The unfortunate thing, of course, is that following that court-ordered advice might get some rape victims killed.
This woman got the ultimate justice, her alleged attacker was brutally murdered at her behest.
Lest we forget she was hangin’ with gangsters and married to a murderer and then conveniently, moved on.
Why, why ,why … would she, of all people be a good role model for girls?
I sure as hell wouldn’t want her lecturing my daughter. This woman has shown and used very poor judgement in her life. Keep it to herself.
“This woman got the ultimate justice, her alleged attacker was brutally murdered at her behest.”
Pretty selective use of “alleged” there.
It’s absolutely “ALLEGED” as Dr. Esparza never reported it and Gonzalo Ramirez never got to defend himself against her charges.
I BELIEVE that Nipsey is referring to you not also using “alleged” for “at her behest.”
Well, even if things went further than she intended she has admitted to setting the events in motion and it’s evident that she was complicit in the cover-up of Ramirez’s murder, so not too “alleged”.
Vern is correct and if there is still a question about what she intended then, well, there you go.
Well, I hope your as johnny-on-the-spot at pointing out where folks refer to her as a “rape victim” and not “alleged rape-victim”.
Let’s all try to be consistent.
I’ll be really nitpicky as soon as someone is facing charges for that.
Too late, unlike Dr. Esparza, Gonzalo Ramirez will NEVER get to defend himself against those charges or see his day in court. Twenty four year old Gonzalo was already kidnapped, tortured and beaten to death with a meat cleaver . Yet she is free to run around to the media describing herself as a rape victim, I however prefer the term ALLEGED MURDER CONSPIRATOR.
I think you are confused. It is the DA that is trading on her being a rape victim, it’s known as ‘a motive’. She is not, as far as I know, using it as a defense.
You obviously haven’t been following her “but I’m just an innocent abused, scared, rape victim ” PR tour. Read about it in People magazine.
So anonster, tell me exactly how you know “she was ‘hangin’ with gangsters and married to a murderer?”
Do you know Norma? Do you know Gianni? Did you know the other
accomplices involved? NO YOU DID NOT!
So, if you did NOT know them and you were NOT there at the crime scene and there has yet to be a full trial disclosing all evidence and witness testimony please tell me how you know Mrs. Esparza was “married to a murderer?”
Please tell me, have you ever had a single thought of your own or do you just devour any useless and uncorroborated morsel of news out there and make it the truth as you know it! Please tell me…on what ‘facts’ do you base your conclusion?
This is exactly the type of ignorant biased BS that is spread without any substantiation!
Thanks Vern! This is exactly the sh%# I’m talking about in my above post! Please…take some responsibility and stop spreading this crap! You have a photo of Mr. Van under which the caption reads, “Murderer Gianni Van.” And you know this how?
Hey asshat, this blog is a forum for discussing current events. This story was covered extensively in the news, I read the articles and formed an OPINION.
By your idiotic standards no one could ever discuss anything.
You are correct though we should have referred to Gianni Van as “alleged murderer” but most of this discussion was focused on his EX-WIFE and whether or not she deserved to stand trial.
Hi anonster. I will attempt to ratchet down the hostile tone a bit in the hopes this does not turn into another hate-filled rant with endless attempts at one-upping the other.
I will first even compliment your MANY valid points regarding Mrs. Esparza’s long silence and culpability. As you point out, where is her desire to seek justice for Ramiriz? As you also said, “what’s a little murder in someone’s past?” Personally I don’t know how anyone could live with that on their conscience.
Now to the crux of my comments yesterday. Of course people can discuss anything they want. I also get that this blog is a forum for current events with the content focused on Mrs Esparza. My fundamental problem however is that the entire premise of this discussion is based on wildly dangerous presumptions which are all treated as facts. While you acknowledge my being correct to point out that the word “alleged” should have come before “murderer” in the caption under Gianni’s photo, I think you fail to understand how serious an omission it is. That omission speaks to the core of my point. It’s yet another damning attribute based on nothing but heresy and becomes very difficult if not impossible to undue once assigned. This case is clearly being tried in the media before ANY facts have been presented. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? A mob mentality vigilante system of justice? Mrs. Esparza’s testimony along with the crap spewed by the SA Police has now entered the public discourse as fact as many of Vern’s and others’ comments confirm. As such, there is an army out there now mobilizing and motivated on such discourse. Mrs. Esparza is a victim. Mr. Van is a monster etc.
Finally, there are two people here who actually know Mr Van VERY well and have known him for a VERY long time. Rose and myself. And while I do not know Rose (she knew him long before me which speaks to the longstanding nature of his character. Between the two of us we’ve know him for most of his life) I find it interesting that our assessments of Gianni’s character and disposition are identical. If this weren’t so serious a matter, I would laugh at all these descriptions of Gianni being a gang-banging, plotting, violent, scary, and jealous rage-filled boyfriend who had had his manhood offended so he needed to mastermind a brutal murder.
As I mentioned earlier, Gianni is one of the most calm, soft-spoken, peaceful and giving people I have ever met. In fifteen years I never once saw him lose his temper. All he would do is surf, buy clothes, treat his friends, take care of his mother, treat his friends again, buy more clothes, surf again and then go to work to pay for it all. Oh yeah, and did I mention that this “monster” is five feet tall? I wonder, when would he assume this other persona? Was it before or after our countless surf sessions over the years? Was it before we went to work together? No..we were out for lunch at that time. Hmm. Maybe those times he was supposedly at the aid of his ailing mother he was actually consorting with the gang bangers and doing drive-bys. That all said, I understand people can hide a dark side so I’m obviously ruling nothing out.
While I may have my own ideas about how this insanely tragic story could have unfolded, I will withhold any and all judgement and assignment of guilt until the facts come out. I would kindly ask
many of you to do the same. Thank you.
And for the record, the marriage was 9 years, not months.
BTW, I LOVE the “asshat” phrase! Can I use that? I’ve used assclown for years and it’s getting kind of tired.
“I’ve used assclown for years and it’s getting kind of tired.”
You should hook up with Joe Sipowicz. That’s one of his fave phrases.
Mark,
I think everyone was so focused on Norma’s story that we all just took for granted that the scenario that was presented was true.
Lesson learned.
I’m glad you are giving us some much needed perspective. I would be pissed too if someone I knew was just assumed to be guilty. For my part, I apologize for assuming things about Gianni, everyone deserves the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to have their side told.
I hope all involved have good representation and get a fair trial.
And feel free to use “asshat” anytime, it isn’t mine anyways.
Starting a new thread Greg,
“I have another question for you, anonster: if one of my daughters is raped by someone that they can identify, should they avoid telling me (or negligently allowing me to find out) because of the possibility that I might kill the rapist? How sure do they have to be that I’m not going to kill the rapist before they’re off the hook?
That’s the sort of question that this case raises in my mind — but I don’t get the sense that you’re struggling with it.”
Uh, because you and I aren’t violent scary people. Are your daughters afraid of you, do they think that you might kill them too? Would they conspire to beat somebody with you? If they knew you had brutally murdered someone would they be cool with that and keep your secret? If they got their vigilante justice would they be willing to pay for it?
What if you had a son Greg, and some woman fingered him to her violent boyfriend and stood by silently while he was brutally murdered and then moved on with her life? No trial, no way for your son to defend himself, just kidnapped and beaten to death with a meat cleaver all on some woman’s say so.
Can you honestly say you would be okay with that scenario?
First, I suppose I’d want to know if he actually had raped her and whether she was in a position to report it.
If she had informed her boyfriend without instructing him to harm him, I’d be pissed off because she had withheld evidence that might have been used to make an arrest. I’d feel that I had been denied justice. If the statute of limitations for obstruction hadn’t expired, I’d want her prosecuted. But if she didn’t actually solicit his murder, I would not want her prosecuted for murder, even if it was the only legal charge that could still be brought — because she would not have actually been an accomplice in his murder.
Now perhaps you’ll take another swing at my scenario.
But he’d be dead and you would have to take her word for everything.
We don’t need either of our opinions as to whether or not Dr. Esparza deserves to be tried, as FPB has mentioned the DA has a witness; “Julie Ann Rojas – Witness to planning, abduction, and knowledge of beating of Gonzalo Ramirez.”
Ms. Rojas’s testimony may have provided reason enough to try Dr. Esparza for her role in Ramirez’s murder or should we just take her word that she’s 100% innocent?
It would really depend on what Ms. Rojas has to say. “Witness to planning, abduction, and knowledge of beating of Gonzalo Ramirez” says surprisingly little — not even mentioning her participation in the same. (Hearsay evidence from Van, perhaps? Probably disallowed.) And her testimony as to “knowledge of beating” (advance? later?) simply isn’t the same as knowledge of murder.
Take her word that she’s 100% innocent (if that’s even her claim)? No. Decide that after all this time and the unavailability of witnesses the case for murder can’t be proven? That’s different — and more likely.
By the way, people get away with murder all of the time. (Henry Kissinger, for one.) That doesn’t make it right, but it does make it less shocking than you seem to believe — even if it’s true.
Again, the effect of this is less likely to be “justice in this case” than suggesting a lesson of “never give up your secret, even if it’s from years ago” in others. I find that troublesome — but if they really think that they can get the murder conviction, despite the problems that they’ve laid out and despite the alternatives I’ve suggested, I suppose that they can try.
Do you object to my wishing that they were less flippant about it?
Of course not, anytime someone is facing criminal charges it’s very serious indeed.
But I can’t source that quote. It all goes back to Art’s (big eye roll) blog. I’d like to see the quote in context.
And I think Ms. Rojas will be an eye witness placing Dr. Esparza in places she’s thus far denied being (if I’m reading the police report right).
Art’s blog? Nothing goes back to Art’s blog, except that he put up the DA’s press release last year. Did you think I copied this story from Art’s blog? I went to their press conference on Wednesday, and talked to them. Has Art copied me now?
The “It’ll be a fun trial” quote is what the husband, Dr. Mancillas, told me that the prosecutor, Michael Murray, said to them as a threat. Yes, I can’t prove it beyond that.
No, as far as I can see Art hasn’t posted about this. If he does I hope he gives his old colleague credit for breaking the story, I’m sure the Weekly won’t.
When I googled Michael Murray and “It’ll be a fun trial” Art’s blog pops up, some hash tag reference I guess.
Excuse me for thinking this was said in an open press conference or at least in front of unbiased witnesses. Dr. Mancillas being the source makes it questionable to say the least.
It’s not verifiable, biased, misleading and NOT worthy of a headline.
It WAS in an open press conference, in response to my question.
But it was Dr. Mancilla’s unverifiable version, as he and his wife are out on a massive PR campaign to whip up sympathy and OUTRAGE on Dr. Esparza’s behalf.
Again, NOT headline worthy.
It might turn out not be true, but I believe it, because I know the sorts of things T-Rack’s and other prosecutors say to defendants to shake them up.
There are a few witnesses to Detective Woo telling Jesus Aguirre that he’d make sure Jesus “ends up dead or in prison.”
There are a few witnesses to US Attorney Steve Welk admitting that the Feds send no warning to building owners like Jalali who innocently rent out space to dispensaries before seizing their buildings “because we like the shock value.”
And it’s only a step or two away from what S-Kang said to the press about the Esparza case, “I know she wants to try this case in the media. We look forward to trying this case in court.”
Actually I think that last statement is indisputable.
I noticed this news story earlier today and have attempted to make sense of it by reading all articles I could locate. After slogging through a great deal of sloppy journalism and really extreme, outrageous comments from the public, I am requesting a short education by you (politically savvy locals) re: why would the DA’s office think this is a winnable case?
Well, M Kendall, this is our useless DA Tony Rackauckas, portrayed by the Orange Juice’s photoshop geniuses in “faceplant” mode:
He’s just wasted $4 million of OC taxpayers’ money, over 4 years, defending a blatantly unconstitutional gang injunction in the City of Orange, having just lost in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and is still considering taking it further … a case I hope to finish writing about today.
Also, from Voice of OC: “In September, Rackauckas asked a Superior Court judge to dismiss all charges against a Saudi Arabian princess living in Irvine who had been accused by his office of human trafficking. Rackauckas made the request after determining the “evidence cannot support” the allegations, according to a story in The Orange County Register.
” [and] Last fall, a panel of Orange County Superior Court judges ruled the county was illegally banning registered sex offenders from parks because it was preempting state law and creating a confusing patchwork of local restrictions.”
I agree with some of what anonster here says, that Dr. Esparza has been far from laudable or even a sympathetic character, but unless our DA has some amazing new evidence none of us have yet guessed at, this’ll just be one more T-Rack Faceplant. Which he won’t mind much, it’s OUR money, and as long as he’s making a show of being harsh on (generally) dark and powerless people, he’ll stay popular with his base.
And meanwhile he will NEVER go after a well-connected politician (with the sole exception of one who lures way too many female underlings into his office for way too many years and masturbates in front of them), OR brutal cops (with the sole exception of if six of you are caught on videotape beating a white, mentally ill, homeless man to death with taser blows to the face, and HIS dad’s a retired cop.)
OK, you guys are right, I have added a bunch of “allegedly”s to the story and captions.
So Mark Stevens, can I meet this wondrous diminutive Gianni? Is he at large?
Is it not true that he hangs people from the ceiling of his brother’s Costa Mesa transmission shop and beats them to death? How can people have that so wrong? THAT should be a big “whoops.”
Vern, was the following sentence true (from your November 21, 2013 at 6:25 AM comment) ?
“Yes, Van and a female accomplice are in prison for Ramirez’ murder; I’m not clear if the white guy is still on the lam. The one other Asian guy, owner of the transmission shop, died in a big-old shootout with a SWAT team rather than be arrested.”
This is why we all thought Gianni Van was a murderer, we thought he’d been tried and convicted. What is the status of this case, has anybody been tried, is anyone in jail for this crime?
A follow-up status report would be interesting and enlightening.
This is what I got from, as I remember, Register and Weekly stories. It sounds like Mike is very close to all this, could you give us an update Mike?
Prosecutor Mike Murray is a jack off.
Who was the DA they make that man that raped her to be some innocent victim.
It’s in the headline: Tony Rackauckas.
Forgot all about this story. I wonder what happened.
I was probably overly credulous with the couple who came to Los Amigos.