LOS ANGELES (CBS) — The main suspect in the brutal beating of San Francisco Giants fan Bryan Stow outside Dodger Stadium took a lie detector test Wednesday to try to prove his innocence.

KNX 1070’s Claudia Peschuitta Reports

Giovanni Ramirez’s head attorney, Anthony Brooklier, spoke to reporters outside Parker Center, where their client was taken for the polygraph test.

Although his attorneys wouldn’t discuss the results of the test or the types of questions that were asked, they said they remain confident that Ramirez would be absolved.

“We think 100 percent our client is innocent,” Brooklier said. “He didn’t beat Bryan Stow and he wasn’t at Dodgers Stadium. He’s never been to Dodgers Stadium and he certainly wasn’t at Dodgers Stadium on March 31, 2011 on opening day.”

The test marks the second for 31-year-old Ramirez who took another lie detector test Tuesday night.

Ramirez has not been charged with the attack, but remains jailed for allegedly violating his parole.

Defense attorney Jose Romero added that the decision on whether to file charges likely won’t hinge on the results of the lie-detector test.

“Attaining freedom for Giovanni Ramirez or at least getting a DA reject from the DA’s office I don’t think is hinging on just pass or failure of a polygraph examination,” Romero said. “I think it’s a combination of all the evidence that our offices have been able to provide and put on the table. This is just a piece of the puzzle to paint the ultimate picture of freedom for our client.”

Ramirez was arrested May 22, in connection with the attack following the Dodgers’ victory over the Giants. Police said 42-year-old Stow was attacked solely because he was wearing Giants gear.

(©2011 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Wire services contributed to this report.)

Comments (13)
  1. shiggity says:

    Good luck on that other attempted murder charge in Nevada. He should be in jail just because of his bad tattoo work. Not sure why latinos settle for their homies to tat them up during a kick back.

  2. Rob says:

    Los Angeles is a crooked city, from the thugs that roam it, to the police and mayor!!!!!!

    1. jack says:

      move to Wyoming then, numb nut…

  3. kjbhvhgv says:

    No matter how these “experts” try to paint a polygraph as an accurate form of judicial process, it’s remains merely information which is interpreted by someone. I was accused by a “lie detector” expert for something which I did not do. A man licensed by the state of AZ to perform such analyses in court cases. “Lie detector”…what is this, the 1960s? How about actual police work here?
    PS: Anyone exclaiming something “should” create an accurate result is insinuating a possibility of failure.

    1. Ramirez is GUILTY says:

      Yes, but the fact that this was Ramirez’s SECOND polygraph can only lead one to assume that he failed the first one and are requesting another to try and redeem the first one. The fact that his lawyers aren’t discussing the results can also lead one to think he indeed failed. If he passed, wouldn’t his lawyer want to make sure the media knew that?

      1. duh says:

        You might be reading way too much into this, as your argument could go both ways. The fact is, his attorneys are negotiating with the DA’s office, NOT the public or the media. They actually have a vested interest in balancing public pressure and confidentiality to respectively keep the DA’s office honest and talking to them at the same time.

        I don’t care either way. I want the CORRECT person brought in and convicted, not just anyone who can make this huge and costly investigation look worthwhile for a few weeks. He’s on a no-bail probation hold, so the DA doesn’t have to make any quick decisions. They can hold him even if they determine they couldn’t charge him and be effective in court. They have us and the media where they want us right now. We have to play it there way for the meantime.

  4. mmk says:

    At least they dressed him in his favorite colors

  5. tom says:

    I ask myself why can’t Stow “friends” who where to scared to help him out identify if this is the guy. they obviously witness the fight.

    1. Ramirez is GUILTY says:

      tom, how do you know his friends or any other witness DIDN’T identify this guy? We certainly don’t know everything about this case that the investigators do; it would compromise the case against Mr. Ramirez.

      1. Loop Pool says:

        I am against prosecutors being able to hold cards close to their vest. They should have to come straight out and say why they think this is the man. A man has lost his freedom here and they are doing something that facilitates their ability to manufacture evidence as they go. At first it was “a parole officer thought he was suspicious because of altered tatoos, and that is just not enough. They put him on a parole hold at first, why not a new beef? They dont have evidence on this guy. There full of it.

  6. Loop Pool says:

    I find it very odd why both sides would agree not to make the lie detector test results public. I can only imagine that going into the test both sides were worried about the test being used against them and dedided that they didnt want to risk it. What a joke. If you are telling the truth, a lie detector test should not make you look guilty.

Leave a Reply