From: jcs
Police interrogations are complex processes involving various psychological techniques and strategies to elicit information from suspects. The case of Stephanie Lazarus, a police officer herself, provides a detailed example of the intricate strategies employed by detectives and the resulting psychological reactions of a suspect [00:00:06]. Detectives often prepare meticulously for such interviews, especially when dealing with someone knowledgeable about police interrogation tactics [00:00:08].
Detective Interrogation Techniques
Detectives in this case employed a carefully rehearsed plan to maintain a casual conversation for as long as possible before initiating confrontation [00:00:11].
Establishing Tone and Environment
The initial approach involved setting a compatible tone with the suspect to negate the negative implications of an interrogation room [00:00:39]. They used a ruse, inviting Stephanie to “advise them on a case involving stolen art,” to bring her in [00:00:00]. The fabricated reason for meeting in an unusual location (the interrogation room) was to avoid spreading rumors or innuendo, while the true reason was to have her check in her firearm without raising suspicion [00:00:59].
Subtle Confrontation and Observation
A key tactic used was the mispronunciation of John Ruetten’s name [00:01:50]. This was a simple strategy to observe the suspect’s reaction [00:01:53]. The detectives already knew the correct pronunciation [00:01:50].
Deceptive Reassurance
When directly challenged by Stephanie about the nature of the meeting, the detective subtly avoided the question [00:05:47]. Instead, he offered a deceptively reassuring response, shifting the focus back to the fabricated concern about workplace rumors and implying they were trying to afford her “privacy” and “confidentiality” [00:05:50]. This tactic aims to maintain the suspect’s cooperation and false sense of security [00:06:01].
Ramping Up Pressure
As the interrogation progressed, the detectives increased pressure in a subtle but effective manner [00:10:55]. They continued to maintain the topic of John Ruetten and his wife without offering further reassurance, signaling the shift towards a more direct confrontation [00:10:52].
Requesting DNA
The request for a DNA swab served as a direct psychological pressure point. The detectives framed it as a means to “identify or eliminate” her, suggesting that a refusal would indicate guilt [00:19:54].
Suspect’s Psychological Reactions
Stephanie Lazarus exhibited several psychological reactions indicative of deception and distress throughout the interrogation.
Deception and Omission
When asked about John Ruetten, Stephanie showed a prolonged pause, which a psychiatrist later stated was four times as long as it should have been [00:02:02]. This was interpreted as an attempt to appear as if she hadn’t thought about him for a long time, suggesting deception [00:02:08]. She initially stated she met him in the dorms but omitted that they had dated for four years and gone on numerous holidays, a common characteristic of deceptive subjects who do not volunteer information [00:02:42].
Fight or Flight Response
Upon hearing the mention of John Ruetten’s wife, Stephanie was likely immediately struck by the psychological reaction known as fight or flight, preparing her to either confront or escape [00:03:47]. She chose to “fight” by trying to maintain control and manage the narrative [00:03:58].
Feigned Vague Memory
Stephanie frequently used exclamatory remarks like “gosh,” “god,” and “jeez” [00:04:23]. These are often used to express surprise or strong emotion and, in this context, to insinuate a vague memory due to a supposed “lack of contemplation” on the subject [00:04:27]. She aimed to create the impression that she had no reason to dwell on John or anything related to him [00:04:41].
Hyper-arousal and Terror Management Theory (TMT)
As the pressure mounted, Stephanie began to over-explain trivial things that did not require explanation, a sign of hyper-arousal and a derivative of Terror Management Theory (TMT) [00:07:29]. This behavior, going off on unrelated tangents, served as a subconscious coping mechanism to gain momentary relief from the terrifying reality she was facing [00:07:42].
Shift in Disposition
Stephanie’s disposition switched from passive when giving a truthful response (about John’s apartment location) to frantic when she pretended to have a vague memory about his post-marriage residence [00:15:36]. This contrast highlighted moments of genuine reflection versus pretense [00:12:26].
Unmitigated Terror
Upon verbalizing the victim’s “tragic demise” for the first time in over two decades, Stephanie’s face displayed “unmitigated terror” [00:13:42].
Accusatory Turn and Request for Counsel
When confronted with the possibility of being a suspect, Stephanie’s demeanor shifted from evasive to accusatory, and she began to question the detectives directly, asking if she needed a lawyer [00:17:32]. This response is often observed in guilty suspects who realize the tactics are turning against them [00:19:15]. She eventually invoked her right to silence and requested an attorney [00:22:10].
Outcome
Stephanie Lazarus was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Sherry Rasmussen [00:22:48]. She was sentenced to 27 years to life [00:24:45]. John Ruetten, the victim’s husband, spoke at the hearing, emphasizing the profound impact of the loss and the bizarreness of the experience spanning 25 years [00:23:16].