From: jcs
Detectives employed a meticulously planned strategy during the interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus, a police officer suspected in a cold case murder. Recognizing they were dealing with “one of their own,” the investigators rehearsed and prepared for this interview more intensely than any previous case [00:00:06].
Initial Setup and Ruse
The core of their plan was to keep the conversation as casual as possible for as long as possible, waiting for opportune moments to initiate confrontation [00:00:11].
The Stolen Art Ruse
Detectives invited Stephanie in under the pretense of advising them on a case involving stolen art [00:00:00].
Setting a Compatible Tone
Upon Stephanie’s entry into the interrogation room, detectives immediately worked to set a compatible tone. They negated the negative implications of the environment through a friendly disposition [00:00:37]. They explained that consultative meetings like this could happen anywhere, and the interrogation room was chosen to prevent the spread of rumors or innuendo among colleagues [00:00:50]. The actual reason for the location was to ensure Stephanie would check in her firearm before entering, without raising suspicion [00:01:05].
Introducing the Suspect’s Past
The detectives subtly shifted the conversation by mentioning Stephanie’s name in notes related to the “new case” of stolen art, then directly asked about John Ruetten, the victim’s husband and Stephanie’s former boyfriend [00:01:15].
Strategic Mispronunciation
The investigators intentionally mispronounced John Ruetten’s name, a simple strategy to observe Stephanie’s reaction [00:01:53]. Stephanie’s subsequent four-times-longer-than-expected pause and deceptive act of not having thought about the name for so long revealed her pretense [00:02:04].
Observing Deception and Evasive Tactics
As the interview progressed, detectives noted several indicators of deception:
- Omission of Key Information: Stephanie stated she met John in the dorms but omitted their four-year dating relationship and numerous holidays together [00:02:42].
- Volunteering Information: A truthful subject would typically volunteer such information without being prompted [00:02:50].
- Fight or Flight Reaction: When John’s wife was mentioned, Stephanie experienced a psychological “fight or flight” reaction, preparing her to either confront or evade [00:03:47]. She chose to “fight” [00:03:58].
- Exclamatory Remarks: Her continuous use of “gosh” and “god” served as exclamatory remarks designed to insinuate a vague memory due to a lack of contemplation, aiming to convey she had no reason to think about John or his wife for decades [00:04:23].
Managing Confrontation and Maintaining Control
Stephanie, being a police officer herself, was aware that acting oblivious to the situation’s unusual development would be a “glaring red flag” [00:05:03]. She challenged the detectives about the interview’s purpose [00:04:59].
Deceptively Reassuring Responses
The detective subtly avoided the question, instead offering a deceptively reassuring response [00:05:46]. He redirected the focus to workplace rumors, portraying themselves as being on her side and providing privacy [00:05:57]. Stephanie, whether from shock or reluctance, accepted this without further inquiry [00:06:44].
Hyper-Arousal and Terror Management Theory
Stephanie later exhibited hyper-arousal, over-explaining trivial details not inquired about [00:07:29]. This is seen as a derivative of Terror Management Theory (TMT), where suspects facing serious charges go off on unrelated tangents as a subconscious coping mechanism to gain momentary relief from a terrifying reality [00:07:37].
Ramping Up Pressure and Direct Confrontation
When Stephanie challenged the detectives a second time, the question was avoided, but this time in a more confrontational manner. The topic was maintained with no reassurance, subtly increasing pressure [00:10:45].
Detecting Reflective States
Detectives asked three consecutive questions about the victim. Stephanie’s facial expression changed for the third, indicating she was genuinely reflecting, unlike the first two where she was pretending to think, already knowing the answers [00:12:18].
The Point of No Return
When asked if she knew what happened to John’s wife, Stephanie replied, “Yeah I know she got killed” [00:13:38]. Her face evinced “unmitigated terror” as she verbalized the victim’s tragic demise for the first time in over two decades [00:13:42].
The DNA Request and Miranda Rights
The detectives shifted to the request for a DNA swab, stating their job was to “identify and eliminate” suspects [00:19:00]. Stephanie reacted by saying “maybe” and that she “probably need[ed] to talk to a lawyer,” expressing her understanding of how such processes work [00:19:11]. She accused them of trying to “pin something on me” [00:19:39].
Ultimately, Stephanie invoked her Miranda rights, stating she did not want to talk to the detectives [00:22:10].
Outcome
Stephanie Lazarus was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Sherry Rasmussen [00:22:48] and sentenced to 27 years to life [00:24:45].