Full story here.
Ramirez' name has been out of the news recently. The suspect has been in custody since May 22, but the LAPD still lacks sufficient evidence against to file formal charges against him.
Meanwhile, Ramirez's legal team has been pretty quiet, too. We use to get a claim of week of Ramirez's innocence since his apprehension. In the first week of June, attorney Anthony Brooklier cited the existence video captured by a motel surveillance camera that would exonerate his client (read more on this at Abort McCourt). According to Brooklier, the video shows that his client didn't have a shaved head at the time of the opening day attack, and, therefore, doesn't match the description of Bryan Stow's attackers.
The Times article linked above makes a brief reference to the surveillance video:
Although Judge Patricia Schnegg said she did not have jurisdiction, authorities agreed to provide such video if it existed, and Brooklier received significant publicity concerning the issue.I don't understand what this means. Does the video exist or is this a bluff job by the attorney? It seems that a video showing Ramirez with grown-out hair the day after Stow's attack would immediately exonerate him of that particular crime. If you're Brooklier, wouldn't you acquire that video by any means necessary, show it to the cops and say: "Bam! This investigation is over."
If there's a defense attorney out there who can shed some light on this, please send me an email.