In dramatic video, LAPD officials accuse fellow detective of being a killer

In a video obtained by The Times, a Los Angeles police detective charged with the 1986 murder of an ex-boyfriend's wife admitted to investigators the morning of her arrest that she had confronted the victim on multiple occasions.

But she denied having a role in the killing.

"You're accusing me of this? Is that what you're — is that what you're saying?" Stephanie Lazarus asked near the end of the roughly hourlong interview, after one of the detectives alluded to evidence that implicated her in the killing.

"Am I on 'Candid Camera' or something? This is insane. This is absolutely crazy. This is insane," Lazarus said minutes later after she walked out of the interview, only to be stopped, handcuffed and told she was under arrest for the murder of Sherri Rae Rasmussen.

The interview transcript, which became public during a hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court, offers a detailed account of how LAPD homicide detectives duped their unsuspecting colleague into talking about the case and Lazarus' disbelief and panic as she realized she was the target of the investigation.

Read the full story here.

RELATED:

Stephanie Lazarus's heartache detailed

Victim's dad pointed to Lazarus 23 years ago

Lazarus's brother lashes out at judge who says accused is 'near certain' flight risk

-- Joel Rubin and Andrew Blankstein

Comments

[WendiG]

This is a plot worthy of resurrecting Harry Bosch..c'mon, Connelly, what would you do with this?

[tomparry]

I am sure her family will enjoy her pension money "earned"

[u know]

Great footage, goes to show that the LAPD does not try and cover for their own, they really tried to trip her up. They had that veteran officer flustered, she looks guilty...lets see what the jury does with this.

[Rob]

Wow, innocent until proven guilty is out the window for you guys. Hopefully there is DNA and they get the right person, even if it's her.

[wally]

saliva dna doesn't degrade sitting in a box for 20 yrs

[Billy]

You show this video? She wasn't charged with any crime...seems like the detectives are trying to stack the decks against her. If your arrested and don't lawyer-up your nuts.

People spend years in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Seems like her civil liberties were violated by releasing this video.

[Vern Simms]

It is incredible how irritating it is to hear people parrot the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" as though it is some kind of holy writ.

The only place where that standard should be applied is in court, and then only by the jury. The rest of the system operates (and should operate) on a presumption that if the police are accusing a person of a crime, there is a reasonable suspicion of the same and they should NOT be treated as innocent (imagine of the prosecutor had to treat suspects that way).

Seriously, think the statement through before popping off with it.

[Vink]

She got the crazy eyes. She's def guilty.

[Tom Kenner]

I'm a police officer, and I feel like this was a dirty scheme to gather evidence (why would they tape it) without her knowing she is the subject of an investigation. They should have come to her and explained what the interview was about and that she is a suspect, so she could have the option of obtaining a lawyer. Extremely dirty.

[Bob]

For you goofball's who have determined that she is guilty from this video, please remind me to never ask for a jury trial if I get railroaded for something. I've been on a jury before, and most people are complete idiots.

[North of Sunset]

That got this woman left to right. The ruse to disarm her was brilliant.

[josh]

"In dramatic video, LAPD officials accuse fellow detective of being a killer"; at what point in the video did they 'accuse her of being a killer'?

The headline is made to sell newspapers and page hits (advertising).

[Craig]

This whole case just went south with this video.

[Craig]

@Vern Simms - You are absolutely WRONG. Read the Sixth Amendment and understand Due Process - and it's "Holy Right" - not a WRIT. This case went south due to her fifth amendment. And you are innocent until proven guilty. 28 years in law enforcement, not television or movies taught me this. A first year defense attorney can win this case.

[Danny]

She's a detective of 26 years and she acts like a two-bit perp with no experience in interrogations. The minute she realized where this was going, she should have said,"I'm outta here. Talk to my lawyer." NO cop just wants to "clear things up" when they talk to you. They want to BUST you. They want you to incriminate yourself. If a cop asks your permission to do something, say NO!!! Police do not ask permission when they have the authority to do something. They only ask when they DON"T have the right. You know, "Do you mind if I look in your trunk?" The DNA sample? Get a warrant. My point is just that she acts like she has no experience at all. She acts so goofy it makes me wonder if she were even competent in her job.

[Watchman]

The crime occured back in 1986 and they're just now coming around to implicating this detective as a possible suspect? My first question is... what took them so long?

I agree she looks guilty. But, we can't go off looks alone. If she is truly not guilty as she claims then she would comply with taking a DNA test with no hesitancy whatsoever.

[LA Native]

I agree with Vink, she DOES have crazy eyes.

[Tom Curnett]

Great video and interview of a 187 suspect.

I would have enjoyed seeing a videotape of Chief Randy Adams attempting to explain how he could run in the Glendale Dash, be a runner in the Baker to Vegas Desert relay and perform spinning at a gym while at the same time be disable from a foot, back and neck injury.

Oh yeah, how he would explain concealing (advised from Angela) his true salary from the public and how this was NOT an
illegal act. Maybe, Steve Cooley could explain it.

JAWACG

[Brad]

She's really not too bright.

She should have just shut up right away and got a lawyer.

[Crazy Horse]

As a retired officer, I have no idea why this female detective even spoke to the homicide dicks at all. You NEVER talk to the police once you know you're a suspect. I don't know if she's good for this caper and I don't really care. I do know that anyone who talks to the police in this setting is freakin' crazy. The cops have a job to do. Lock people up. Simple.

[John Volk]

You have to be kidding me...ah, you're not I know.I looked at this and I have a strong background in "Interviewing and "Interrogating" and the cops went straight to Interrogating. That means they KNOW THE ANSWER ALREADY!!!
She was stubling and stammering. The kenitics I read from her is she IS appraised to SOME type of knowledge of the workings of this case. She acted almost like some kind of dumb bumpkin. How could she even get a carry permit, let alone a protection position??? She is displaying all the actions of a guilty party. Sorry. When I first heard of this I thought "frame up" ...after watching her talk...squirm?? I think she knows more than ....you have the idea....she needs to be talked to MORE>>>>

[dsrtflwr]

Well, don't forget she's known and worked with these guys for a long time. She thinks they're all buddies. That might be one reason she's being so stupid and talking too much and not getting a lawyer right away.

[Richard Carpenter]

My concern is for citizens involved in love triangles or other personal conflicts with police. Right now it it police policy that an off duty cop can start a purely personal fight with a citizen and that any resistance by that citizen justifies the cop's use of sufficient force to subdue the citizen, including shooting the citizen. The citizen's efforts in self-defense constitute a felony. This is not what they teach in law school but it certainly is the "Law of Cops on the Street".

[art]

They wouldn't have leaked all of this info unless the case against her was air-tight. The LAPD obviously did not think highly of her, even before the bust . . .

[Jan]

What is scary is they only pursued this because the original DNA indicated the perp was female. If the LAPD officer had been the same sex as what matched the original theory of the perpetrator, would they have gone any further? Also, bite marks on the victim (but apparently no indication of sexual assault), and indications that the victim had been frightened and harassed by one particular person, and their first assumption was a botched burglary??