From: jcs
Detectives employ various interrogation techniques and strategies to gather information and elicit confessions from suspects. These often involve careful planning, psychological tactics, and observation of suspect behavior during the interview.
Initial Setup and Ruse
To bring a suspect in without alarming them, detectives may create a ruse, such as inviting the suspect to advise on an unrelated case, like stolen art [00:00:00]. Given they were dealing with a fellow officer, the detectives rehearsed and prepared for the interview more extensively than ever before [00:00:08]. Their initial plan was to maintain a casual conversation for as long as possible before initiating confrontation at key moments [00:00:11].
Setting the Tone
Upon the suspect entering the interrogation room, detectives immediately work to establish a compatible tone [00:00:37]. They aim to negate the negative implications of the environment through a friendly disposition [00:00:43].
Deceptive Environment Explanation
Consultative meetings, such as seeking advice on art theft, can occur anywhere, making an interrogation room an unusual choice [00:00:51]. The detectives provide a false reason for meeting in such a location, claiming it’s to prevent the spread of rumors or innuendo within the workplace [00:01:00]. The actual, unstated reason is to ensure the suspect checks in any firearms before entering the area, thus disarming them without raising suspicion [00:01:05].
Initial Confrontation and Deception Detection
Detectives carefully introduce the true subject of the interview, observing the suspect’s reaction. The investigators purposefully mispronounced the name of the victim, “John Rutten,” as a simple strategy to observe how the suspect would react [00:01:50]. The suspect exhibited a prolonged pause, four times longer than it should have been, indicating deception [00:02:02]. This pause was interpreted as the suspect acting as if the name was not readily recalled, despite it being deeply “engraved in her memory” [00:02:08].
Observing Omissions and Volunteered Information
A truthful subject will often volunteer relevant information without being directly pressed for it [00:02:50]. When asked about knowing the victim, the suspect initially stated she met him in dorms but omitted the fact they dated for four years and went on numerous holidays together [00:02:42]. This omission is considered a sign of deception.
Psychological Reactions and Verbal Cues
When confronted with the victim’s wife’s name, the suspect likely experienced a “fight or flight” psychological reaction, triggering a rush of hormones to prepare her to either confront or escape the threat [00:03:41]. The suspect chose to “fight” [00:03:58].
The suspect frequently used exclamatory remarks like “gosh” and “gee” [00:04:23]. These exclamations are often used to express surprise or strong emotion and, in this interrogation, were interpreted as an attempt to insinuate a vague memory due to a supposed “lack of contemplation on the subject matter” [00:04:27]. This behavior aimed to convey that she had no reason to dwell on the victim or their past relationship [00:04:40].
Suspect’s Awareness and Detective’s Counter-Strategies
The suspect, being an experienced police officer, was aware that acting oblivious to the unusual progression of the interview would be a “glaring red flag” to the investigators [00:05:04]. Guilty suspects often try to appear naive to blatant confrontations to avoid them, whereas truthful subjects typically address confrontations, refute them, or seek immediate clarification [00:05:15].
Deceptive Reassurance
When challenged about the shift from an art interview to a personal inquiry, the detective subtly avoided the direct question [00:05:47]. Instead, he offered a “deceptively reassuring response,” pivoting the focus back to the false premise of privacy and avoiding workplace rumors [00:05:50]. This tactic reinforced the false perception that the detectives were “on her side” and doing her a favor [00:06:01].
Coping Mechanisms: Over-Explaining
The suspect then began to “over-explain things that don’t require an explanation and weren’t even inquired about” [00:07:29]. This behavior is seen as a “clear-cut indication of hyper-arousal and a derivative of Terror Management Theory (TMT)” [00:07:35]. Psychiatrists believe this “going off on unrelated tangents” is a subconscious coping mechanism, providing momentary relief and a brief escape from the terrifying reality of the interrogation [00:07:44].
Increasing Pressure and Miranda Warnings
Detectives gradually increased pressure by maintaining the challenging topic without providing further reassurance [00:10:52]. This subtle yet highly effective technique aimed to wear down the suspect’s resolve [00:10:55].
Non-Verbal Cues and Truthful Responses
The suspect’s facial expression completely changed when asked about details she genuinely had to search her memory for, compared to questions for which she pretended to be reflecting [00:12:26]. This distinction helped detectives discern between feigned and genuine memory recall.
When confronted with the fact of the victim’s wife being killed, “unmitigated terror” was evident on the suspect’s face [00:13:42]. This reaction occurred as she verbalized the victim’s tragic demise for the first time in over two decades [00:13:49].
As the investigation intensified and the suspect felt accused, she challenged the detectives, asking if she was a suspect and if she needed a lawyer [00:17:31]. Detectives responded by stating she was there voluntarily and was not under arrest, free to leave [00:18:02].
Request for DNA and Miranda Rights
When asked for a DNA swab, the suspect expressed that she likely needed to speak to a lawyer [00:19:11]. This triggered a direct response from the detectives about DNA evidence possibly being at the crime scene [00:20:06].
Eventually, the Miranda rights were read to the suspect:
- Right to remain silent [00:21:53]
- Anything said can be used against them in court [00:21:56]
- Right to the presence of an attorney before and during questioning [00:22:00]
- Right to an appointed attorney free of charge if unable to afford one [00:22:04]
Upon hearing these rights, the suspect declined to talk further [00:22:10].
Outcome
Stephanie Lazarus was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Sherri Rasmussen, violating penal code section 187A [00:22:48]. She was sentenced to 27 years to life and is held in a maximum-security unit [00:24:45].