Casefile True Crime - Case 42: Sherri Rasmussen

Episode Date: January 14, 2017

When 29-year-old Sherri Rasmussen married the love of her life, John Ruetten, the future looked promising. But just three months after their wedding, Sherri was found shot to death in the couples Van Nuys apartment. One thing was clear – Sherri had fought for her life until the very end... --- Assisted in research and co-written by Anna Priestland For all credits and sources please visit casefilepodcast.com/case-42-sherri-rasmussen

Add a pop of culture to every room in your house with SiriusXM. Stream over 425 channels of ad-free music, plus exclusive talk, world-class news, live play-by-play sports, comedy, and popular podcasts with the SXM app. Subscribe to the streaming platinum plan and get your first three months for free. Visit SiriusXM.ca for details.

SiriusXM, everything you want to hear lives here. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Van Nuys is a neighbourhood in the central San Fernando Valley region of the city of Los Angeles, California. And it was there that newlyweds Sherry Rasmussen and John Rutten lived in a condo together on Balboa Boulevard. Sherry Rasmussen was born on the 7th of February, 1957. Her parents were Nells and Loretto Rasmussen. The middle daughter of three, Sherry was known as a gentle, kind, and caring woman. Strikingly beautiful, her compassion for others drove her to study nursing at the age of 16.

By the age of 29, she was the director of critical care at Glendale Adventist Hospital. Sherry was well respected and known for her caring approach to her job. John Rutten was born in Eugene, Oregon, in September 1958. He excelled at basketball growing up, and he continued that passion at UCLA, where he studied engineering. He was a charming, handsome, and athletic student. He graduated in 1982 and a few years later secured a job as a mechanical engineer at a disc drive manufacturer. John and Sherry met at a party in the spring of 1984. John was immediately attracted to Sherry.

As soon as he met her, he got her number from a mutual friend. They went on a date and instantly hit it off. They became an exclusive item from that very first date. Shortly after meeting each other, John met Sherry's parents and they enjoyed family trips together on their boat. They were engaged in May 1985 and John bought Sherry a BMW as an engagement gift. John moved into Sherry's condo on Balboa Boulevard and they were married on 23 November 1985. Friends and family described them as the perfect couple, utterly in love. Music

Prior to meeting Sherry, John had dated several other women. In 1981, while studying at UCLA, he met a fellow student from the same dorm who also played basketball, political science student Stephanie Lazarus. Stephanie loved sports and was very fit. She was on the junior varsity basketball team and was known as a bit of a prankster. She was well liked and had a lot of friends. Stephanie and John grew close. Although they shared some intimacy at college, they didn't start a sexual relationship until after they graduated. They took troops together and Stephanie met John's family on more than one occasion. Not many of their friends from their college days knew about their relationship and at one point John started to feel uncomfortable about it so he stopped seeing Stephanie for a while. John had always viewed their relationship as casual and he continued to see other women while he was seeing Stephanie.

They never formally discussed their relationship but it was mutually known they were not exclusive. When John became engaged to Sherry, Stephanie heard the news through a mutual friend. It was during a period of time when John and Stephanie hadn't hung out together for quite a while. As it was a mutually non-exclusive agreement between them, John didn't think it was necessary to tell Stephanie the news himself. A month after the engagement, Stephanie called John and pleaded with him to visit her at her condo in the nearby suburb of Woodland Hills. Stephanie was upset and crying hysterically. John went to her condo and Stephanie confessed her love for him and pleaded over and over for him to have sex with her. John explained he was marrying Sherry and that he and Stephanie's relationship was now over.

However, they did end up sleeping together that day. After this encounter, John says he didn't have any contact at all with Stephanie for the next few years. John and Sherry married on the 23rd of November 1985. On their three-month anniversary, the 23rd of February 86, John gave his new bride three red roses, a symbol of the three months they had been married. Sherry sat them in a vase on the dining table. That day they were visited by Sherry's sister, Teresa, and her husband, Brian, as well as a close friend of John's, Mike Gorda. They all said how happy John and Sherry were that day, holding hands, laughing, and loving each other's company. The next morning, Monday the 24th of February 86, John Rutten was up early to get ready for work.

He left home at 7.20am and stopped to drop off dry cleaning on the way. Sherry wasn't going to work. She had woken up and called in sick. John knew that Sherry wasn't keen on attending a lecture that day, which had more to do with the sick day than her actually being sick. During the day, John called Sherry two or three times just to check in on her. There was no answer. The phone rang out as their answering machine was turned off. After finishing work, John stopped off at the bank before arriving home about 6pm. Sherry and John's condo was in a gated complex on the 7100 block of Balboa Boulevard, Van Nois. A six foot high wall surrounded the entire block, and to drive in you needed a remote control.

Each pedestrian gate also required a key. That condo was in the central part of the complex, and it was not an easy place to get into unless you had a key or someone let you in. When John got home, he immediately noticed broken glass from the patio door scattered on the driveway. The garage door was up, and Sherry's BMW was missing. A neighbour said it had been like that for most of the day. He saw the door up and car missing about 9.30am. The internal door from the garage to the condo was also a jar. John knew instantly that something was wrong. As John walked up the stairs from the garage, he found Sherry lying dead on the floor, still in her nightgown. Sherry had been severely beaten, her eyes were swollen, she had lacerations and bruising to her face and body, and a bite mark on her left inner forearm.

The living room had been ransacked, the vase had been smashed all over the floor, the drawer had been pulled out and its contents tipped upside down. The TV wall unit was partially dismantled, and at the foot of the stairs, a stereo and VCR equipment had been stacked in a plier. Speaker Wire and Roat was laying at the entry to the home. John called 911, and the first responder on the scene was LA firefighter and paramedic Gregory Tillian, who found John crying. Criminalists from the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office arrived. They checked for trace evidence around Sherry's body and collected specimens. A sexual assault kit was carried out and two saliva swabs were taken from the bite mark on Sherry's arm. Sherry had been shot three times in the chest.

The bullets were confirmed to be from a .38 caliber handgun, and forensic tests later showed that the gun would have had a barrel length of two inches. They were unable to determine the exact gun, as there were several capable of firing the bullets found at the scene. All of the crime scene evidence was logged into the coroner's office. The lead homicide detective on the case was Detective Lyle Mayer from the Van Nuys Division of the LAPD. After examining the scene, he was sure he knew what happened. A burglary gone wrong. Mayer's theory was as follows. Two offenders entered the condo through the unlocked front door, as there was no sign of forced entry.

One began to dismantle the TV and stereo equipment while the other went upstairs. Sherry startled the offender as he didn't realise she was home. A struggle started upstairs before continuing downstairs into the living room, leaving a bloody trail and handprint on the wall as Sherry attempted to escape, or possibly tried to reach the panic button, which was part of the condo's alarm system. While reaching for the offender's gun during the struggle, Sherry was bitten on her left inner forearm. She was hit over the head with the vase, likely knocking her unconscious. The offender then reached for a quilt which was sitting nearby.

He wrapped the quilt around the barrel of the gun to muffle the sound, held the gun up to Sherry's chest, and fired three shots at close range. Marks on Sherry's wrists indicated she had likely been bound, and broken fingernails were found on the floor with a bloody towel. There had been a spade of burglaries in the area in recent times. The offenders were described as Latino males armed with a handgun, which is how Maya came to theorise that two offenders were responsible. A door knock was conducted and a neighbouring housekeeper said she heard a scuffle and a scream,

but no gunshots. She didn't see anybody. Sherry's purse was missing, but it was found in a garden within the complex. There were a few things disturbed in the house, such as the stereo equipment and VCR. However, Sherry's jewellery box, which was in plain sight, wasn't touched. The only things actually stolen were Sherry's BMW and her and John's marriage certificate. Maya believed the offenders must have panicked after killing Sherry and left in a hurry, leaving the stereo and VCR they had stacked up and taking the car instead for a quick escape. He had no doubt it was a burglary gone bad.

He felt even better about this theory when two months later there was another burglary nearby, two Latino males armed with a handgun. These two males became the focal point for the investigation. Wanted posters were distributed with sketches of the men saying they were wanted for murder. Sherry's car was found ten days after she was killed. It was actually located nearby the condo, intact and with the keys still in the ignition. Sherry's killing came on the front end of a huge upswing of the murder raid in Los Angeles. The homicide raid in the city was the highest it had been in six years.

Although Detective Maya had his burglary suspects, John Rutten was still considered. The spouse is the first person police look at in any murder investigation. But there was no sign of trouble in the marriage. All reports were of a happy, loving couple still in the honeymoon phase. There was no insurance, no motive and John had a rock solid alibi. He had been at work all day, seen by many people in the office. During his questioning, John brought up several names, including that of Stephanie Lazarus, his ex-lover. He referred to her as a friend from his old student days.

Nels and Loretta Rasmussen, Sherry's parents, came forward and provided Maya with information about some disturbing incidents prior to the murder. Stephanie Lazarus turned up at Sherry and John's condo, dressed provocatively, and asked John to wax her skis. Which he did. About one month after Stephanie's last sexual encounter with John during his engagement to Sherry, Stephanie appeared at the hospital where Sherry worked. She approached Sherry in her office and said, If I can't have John, then nobody can. She also said that if the marriage didn't work out, then she would be there to pick up the pieces.

Stephanie also told Sherry about the sexual encounter she had with John during their engagement. Sherry confronted John that night and he admitted the infidelity. But he swore that he truly loved Sherry and that he wanted to be her husband. Sherry accepted John's apology and their engagement continued. Stephanie started showing up at other places where Sherry was and on one occasion, she even appeared inside the condo. Sherry had no idea how she had gotten inside. She started to wonder if John was actually having a full-blown affair with Stephanie. Sherry also felt that she was being followed.

The person she saw following her looked like a woman, disguised as a man. Sherry confided in her father, friends and a work colleague about the problems she was having. She mentioned that the person responsible was John's ex-girlfriend, but she never mentioned her name. Sherry's father, Nels, had offered to help, but Sherry said she wanted to see if she could work it out on her own. John said that other than the confrontation at the hospital, he was unaware of any of the other stalking behaviour Sherry had mentioned to friends and family. Detective Mayer, though, felt he was on the money with his burglary gone wrong theory. He was so sure of the theory he never even questioned Stephanie, saying he felt it was unnecessary. The two Latino suspects remained unidentified and as 1986 ended, the murder remained unsolved.

The evidence was eventually sealed in a box and put away with thousands of other unsolved cases. The following year, 1987, the Rasmussen's held a press conference where they offered a $10,000 reward for any information leading to an arrest of their daughter's killer. Nels Rasmussen said, it's been nearly two years of hell not knowing who did this to Sherry or why. Nels mentioned John's ex-girlfriend numerous times to detectives. He didn't feel comfortable with the burglary theory and wanted detectives to pursue the ex-girlfriend angle. On one occasion he was told, you watch too much television. Frustrated and feeling ignored, Nels wrote a letter to the chief of police voicing his concerns. He didn't receive a reply.

The year Sherry was murdered, 1986, was the same year that the science of police work worldwide took a monumental leap forward. In Leicester, England, Alec Jeffries developed techniques for DNA fingerprinting and DNA profiling which revolutionised the way criminal cases were solved. Known as genetic fingerprinting, it was first used to convict a rapist in England later that year. It was first used in the United States the following year, 1987. As the years went by, the Rasmussen's contacted the LAPD regularly to check on the case. In 1993, Nels Rasmussen made an appointment to meet the detectives who had taken over the case after Detective Lyle Mayer's retirement. Nels had heard of the advances in DNA testing in criminal investigations, which was now becoming more widespread. Nels offered to pay for testing on the samples from Sherry's crime scene himself.

The new detectives informed him they had looked into the case and had found no further leads. They turned down Nels offered to pay for DNA testing. They told the Rasmussen's to move on with their lives. After this meeting, the Rasmussen family stopped calling. John Rutten said little publicly after the murder. He didn't cope well and eventually he quietly faded out of sight. Others close to Sherry were left angry that John wasn't demanding answers at the police. Although he had mentioned Stephanie to detectives, he didn't push the point.

He didn't fight. He just seemed to accept that the case would remain unsolved. The LAPD cold case homicide unit was established in 2001. It was formed on the back of further advancements in forensic testing and a huge backlog of unsolved murders. When the doors to the cold case unit opened, there were seven detectives and a case load of over 9,000 unsolved murders. The LAPD had received a grant of $50 million to fund DNA testing for cases deemed to have sufficient evidence. The cold case unit focused on cases dating back to 1960. Seven and a half thousand cases in total of which 1,400 were deemed to have sufficient evidence for testing. The two types of murders deemed to have the highest chance of leaving strong DNA evidence were sexually motivated and burglary murders.

As the killer spends more time around the scene. The cold case unit had its first major breakthrough in 2003, closing a serial case, a Dolph-Lordenberg. A 77-year-old grandfather was arrested for the rape and murder of four women between 1972 and 1975. In this particular case, they had a DNA sample from somebody other than the victims, but there was no match on the database. When the suspect's DNA isn't on the database, police can apply for a warrant to force the suspect to provide a DNA sample, but they have to have other evidence to support the warrant application. Another option is to ask the suspect to volunteer. However, that then tips them off and presents the risk of them running and destroying further evidence if it exists,

which leaves the last option, obtaining a sample from an item the suspect has voluntarily discarded, such as a cup or a straw. This is how the cold case unit obtained a sample from Lordenberg, which put him away for the four murders. He's now serving life in prison. It wasn't long after this first big breakthrough that cold case detective David Lankin and his team came across the case of Sherry Rasmussen. They first submitted a request to the crime lab to provide analysis on all of the evidence in Sherry's file in late 2003. It wasn't until December 2004 that crime lab technician Jennifer Francis noticed the request had never been filled, so she volunteered to work on it. She first analyzed the blood sample taken from the autopsy, which provided her with Sherry's DNA profile. Working down the list of evidence, she tested the pieces of fingernail and the bloodstained towel found at the crime scene.

Both were matches to Sherry. Finally, she went to swap the samples taken from the bite mark on Sherry's left in a forearm. Initially, the samples couldn't be located. However, after a search, they were found in storage at the LA County Coroner's Office. When a sample is taken, it is placed in a vial, which is then sealed in an envelope to preserve the integrity of the exhibit. In this case, the envelope had torn, causing the vial to protrude through. However, the vial and the samples themselves were found to be undisturbed and intact. Francis gained two separate DNA profiles from the bite mark.

One was Sherry's. The other surprised Francis, who by now had come to expect the XY male gender marker to show up from samples taken from violent crimes. But this result was showing XX. The killer was a woman. She ran the results through the computerized criminal database to try and match the DNA sample. There was no result. And so the case was put back into storage. By early 2007, when Detective David Lampkin retired, the cold case homicide unit had solved more than 40 murder cases.

But an increase in open cases and a lack of room in the office meant that any cases not currently being worked on were sent back to their original divisions. So Sherry's case was sent back to the Van Nois division, where it remained untouched for another two years. It wasn't until early 2009 that homicide detective Jim Nuttle picked up the file on his desk at Van Nois. It was a large file, and Nuttle noticed that a pretty good chronological record had been kept of everything done during the investigation over the previous 23 years. He read the original theory. Two male offenders had ransacked the property and had interrupted 29-year-old Sherry Rasmussen, who they had not realized was home. A struggle ensued, and Sherry had been killed. Berglary gone wrong.

But then he read about the testing that had been done five years earlier. The killer was female. This completely contradicted the theory of the case. Nuttle searched the case notes for the names of women who could possibly be considered suspects. He came up with five names. One of those names put a shiver through him. It stood out because written next to the name were the words PO. John's ex-girlfriend, Stephanie Lazarus, was a patrol officer in the LAPD at the time of Sherry's murder.

She was now a highly commended detective in a high-profile unit of the LAPD. And her husband was also a detective, who happened to work in Jim Nuttle's office. Stephanie Lazarus graduated from the police academy in the summer of 1983 and was assigned to Hollywood division. In those days, only about 2% of the force were women. She went on to become a detective and was twice named detective of the year, receiving a promotion to Detective 2, a supervisory role. Stephanie's personnel file described her as an asset to the team. She was known for her honest character in the outstanding police work, a cop's cop. She raised money to start a reliable, round-the-clock daycare center for members of the LAPD.

She became involved with the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program and gave talks at schools. She even appeared on an episode of Family Feud when they were running a week-long special, Battle of America's Finest. She married a fellow detective in the mid-90s. They adopted a daughter and her friends described her as a great mother. Stephanie worked in internal affairs, the unit responsible for investigating corruption and wrongdoing of fellow officers, before earning a position in the department of art theft and fraud in 2007, a unit within the commercial crimes division of the LAPD, a high-profile position that came with a lot of attention and a lot of press.

Stephanie had never faced a disciplinary hearing in her career and was known to always work by the book. Of the four other names that Nuttall identified in the file as potential suspects, three were quickly ruled out. The fourth was a nurse who had worked with Sherry. They didn't get along and had occasionally argued. Sherry had actually taken her position at the hospital, giving her motive, but they cleared her by testing her DNA from a discarded item. That left one name, Stephanie Lazarus. Jim Nuttall had his work cut out for him.

Not only was Stephanie a well-respected officer, but he worked with her husband. He sought the help of the LAPD's Robbery Homicide Division, based at Parker Center in downtown L.A., which was LAPD headquarters at the time. Robbery Homicide investigate all the high-profile cases. The investigators had the tread lightly. The LAPD network is tight. The integrity of the case was their number one goal. They worked nights behind closed doors and gave Stephanie the codename number five.

They left to no paper trail, nor did they disclose the investigation to anyone else. It was too risky. Their prime suspect had once been a detective in the Internal Affairs Division, and now they would be investigating her. The LAPD's Robbery Homicide Investigation Department, and their prime suspect had once been a detective in the Internal Affairs Division, and now they would be investigating her. Not only that, she worked at Parker Center as well,

directly across the hall from the Robbery Homicide Division. After reviewing the case file, one of the detectives on the case, Mark Martinez, recalled that in the mid-80s, LAPD officers carried 38-caliber revolvers as their backup, or off-duty gun, the same type of gun used to tickle Sherry. He entered Stephanie's name into the State Gun Registry and found a report. On Sunday, the 9th of March, 1986, 13 days after Sherry's murder, Stephanie filed a report with the Santa Monica Police Department. The report stated that her car had been broken into at the Santa Monica Pier.

The thief had stolen her blue gym bag containing some clothes, some cassettes, and a Smith & Wesson five-shot, 38-caliber revolver. Things were starting to look very clear. Their main priority, though, was getting a sample of Stephanie's DNA. They decided the best way to play it would be to obtain a sample from something Stephanie voluntarily discarded. They had her under surveillance for two weeks before they got their chance. Stephanie was shopping with her daughter at a local Costco store.

She purchased a drink and sat down at a table. A detective sat 20 feet away from her, watching her every move. He watched as she took her last sip and walked within three feet of him to put it in the bin. He didn't take his eyes off the bin as he waited for Stephanie to walk out of his field of vision. Then he approached the bin, picked up the cup by its base, and put it into an envelope. He and his partner then walked off in different directions. 48 hours later, they got the result. The DNA was a clear match.

The chance that the bite on Sherry's arm was from a different person than Stephanie was over 402 quadrillion to one. On the 5th of June 2009, 23 years, three months, and 12 days after the murder of Sherry Rasmussen, Stephanie Lazarus reported to work as usual at the Parker Center. Detective Dan Jaromillo approached her desk and asked her if she could assist with an arrest they had made that morning. He explained they were holding a man in the building's basement jail facility who said he had information about an art theft, a case Stephanie was working on. She eagerly agreed to help question the suspect. They walked down to the jail facility, making small talk, discussing how busy each other's units were.

When they arrived at the jail, they both had to check in their weapons, which was routine and a requirement of all officers before entering. They had just disarmed Stephanie without raising suspicion. Jaromillo guided Stephanie into an interrogation room where he introduced her to his partner, Detective Greg Stearns. Detectives Jaromillo and Stearns were from the Robbery Homicide Division. They ushered Stephanie to a seat usually used by those under arrest. But we're talking about being busy and stuff. We've been assigned a case that we've been looking at. Okay.

It's a new case. And revealing the case, there's some notes to see as far as your name being mentioned. Oh, okay. Do you know John Rootin? John Rootin. John Rutten? Rutten. Oh, yeah, I went to school with him.

You did? Yeah. How long did you know him? Gosh, I went to school and let's see. When did you CLA in 1978? I started and met him at school at the dorms. Were you guys friends? Close friends?

Yeah, we're very close friends. Yeah. I mean, what's this all about? Well, it's regarding, it's a case we're working on and involves John. And in there, some of the statements we reviewed, there's notes and stuff that he knew you and stuff. Oh, yeah. Good friends lived in the dorms for two years. You guys lived in the same dorm?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, Geistra. Okay. Were you guys just friends or anything else? Yeah, we were good friends. Yeah. Was there any relationship or anything that developed between you guys?

Yeah, I mean, we dated. Uh-huh. You know, I mean, what's this all about? It's relating to his wife. Okay. Okay. Did you know her? Not really.

I mean, I knew that he got married years ago. Uh-huh. Did you ever meet her? God, I don't know. Do you know who she was or anything? Well, let me think. God, it's been a long time ago. I may have met her.

Geez. You know. Yeah. Uh-huh. Well, let me ask you. You said you dated John. How long did you guys date? I mean, are you guys, is this something, I mean, you said I was going to interview somebody

about art and how you guys are, I mean. Stephanie, here's the situation. It's basically, we, you know, we knew that this, when we saw this in the, in this chrono, that maybe, you know, there was some relationship there. That's what the chrono seemed to indicate. And we didn't want to come up to you at your desk and ask those kinds of questions or do anything. You know how up there, people can see what's going on if you go into an interview room

or people are in there getting supplied to you. So we wanted to afford you some privacy, some confidentiality to talk about this because we thought it might be, you know, something, you know, you're married to someone else, obviously, and so forth. And that you may not want to, you know, talk about these things in that setting where someone, you know, we don't want the rumor mill or gossip or any of that kind of stuff. I mean, that's fine. I mean.

We did this just as a means to try and speak to you in just a confidential place where you, you know, where your business isn't out there for other people in your division. Yeah. I mean, you know, God, that's been a million years ago. I mean, you know, what year is it now? 2009. I mean, I graduated in 82. 82.

Yeah. You know, we dated. I dated other guys. I'm sure he dated other girls. I mean, what's, I mean, what's this all about? I mean, Well, let me ask you, what ended the relationship between you and John? You know, I don't, it was kind of a weird relationship.

I mean, we, we, we dated. I can't say that he was my boyfriend. I don't know that he would consider me his girlfriend. We just, we dated. We did things. I played sports in college. He played basketball. His brother played basketball.

We just, you know, it just didn't work out. I mean, I don't know what to tell you. It was like, I went out with other guys. I saw other guys. I went on lots of vacations. You know, Had you ever met his wife? I may have.

Do you know, do you remember her name or anything? Um, Or what she did for a living or where she worked or anything about her? Well, I think she, I'm going to say that I think she was a nurse. Um, Man, I can't remember how he said he met her. I mean, I, I, yeah, I mean, it's been so long ago. You know, I don't understand why you're talking about some guy dated a million years ago.

Do you know what happened to his wife? Yeah, I know she got killed. What did you, what did you hear about that? I saw a poster at work. Um, I'm sure I spoke to him about it. Um, I think I spoke to another friend of his about it. Um,

And how did, how did you first learn about that? Jeez. Someone could have called me. I could heard it at work. Um, I think at one point there may have been a flyer or something. I know a good friend of his. Were you on the job back then?

Will that happen? Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I'm sure I was on the job. That's what I would have heard about it with the flyer. Um, He had a good friend, Mike. Mike Boldrick. Mike.

Hmm. Um, Anyways, He may have lived in the dorms. I don't remember if that's how I met him. Um, I may have talked to him. I mean,

You know, I don't remember how I heard. I mean, I don't even remember what year it was. You know, Was it everything okay between you guys? I mean, There was never anything uncomfortable or anything between you and her?

Um, You know, I don't know. I mean, It's kind of, It's been so many years. I mean, Uncomfortable.

I mean, Yeah, I can't, I can't even remember if we had a conversation. I mean, We may have, I may have seen her at his apartment. You know,

Geez, How many years ago was that? I don't even know what year she, You know, Got killed. Where was his apartment? On Roscoe. Okay.

Yeah, Roscoe and, Um, East or West of DeSoto, Either East or West of DeSoto. Do you know where he moved after, Did he move after he got married? Or do you know?

Or, I'm sure he did. Do you know where he was living? Or, Somewhere in the valley? Did you ever visit him and his wife? No. No?

Never went out, You know, Get together, Dinners, I know, No. After his wife died, Did you talk to him again or anything?

Yeah, I mean, I did talk to him. I talked to him, Probably his parents, Um, Probably some other friends, Um,

You know, I'm sure I talked to him. Yeah. Um, But you don't, You're not sure where he moved to after he got married? No idea. I mean,

Never went over to visit him or, I don't think, I mean, I don't think so. I mean, Um, I don't know. I don't,

I mean, I don't think I did. Um, I mean, I know he lived on Roscoe for a long, Long time. Um, I mean,

I may know. I mean, He may have told me where they lived, Somewhere in the valley. I mean, He may have said, I lived over such and such, But I couldn't tell you specifically where.

But you don't remember specifically ever going over to visit him Or visit them And wherever he moved when he left Roscoe? I, I don't know. I don't think so. But, Okay.

You know, I don't want to say, No, I don't think so. And then he says, Oh yes, He came over for something, You know, I'm,

I don't know. I mean, When you heard about, Uh, John's wife being killed, I mean, What was your, What was your reaction?

I mean, You thought you heard about what, Through a friend or, In a bulletin or something? Either a friend or a bulletin. Um, I obviously, I mean,

I called, I called the family. Um, I called maybe some of his friends that, That I knew. And I mean, Obviously it shocked your fear. If I heard it at work,

You know, Which I may have, You remember a bulletin going around? Um, Either that or somebody called me. I, I also don't remember. Right.

Um, And then I called, Probably called his family. Um, Called, Uh, I don't know initially, I can't say if I initially spoke to him or not.

I honestly don't remember. I may have said to somebody, Hey, Have him call me if he wants to talk. And then he may have done that. Uh-huh. Um, You know,

See, Do you know what the circumstance is worse? Regarding her death? Mmm. Geez, Let me think back. Um, Geez,

I don't know if it was, You know, If it was a burglary or something. Uh, yeah, I mean, It's been so many years. I mean, I can faintly think that I may have saw a flyer.

Yeah. Uh, May have had a picture on it. You know, I mean, That's what I say. If somebody had called me, I may not have known what her last name was.

I may have. I mean, Maybe if you told me, I would remember it. Um, You remember the first name? Uh, Shelly,

Um, Sherry, I don't know, Something maybe, You know, Um, Like I said, It's been so many years.

And, You know, I'm thinking back now, You guys are bringing up all these whole memories. No, It kind of dust off the cob. You know, I mean,

I'm thinking that, Because I mean, We would date, He would date other people. I would date other people. And, I think, You know,

At one point, I mean, He may have been dating her, Or, I don't know, Maybe he was married. I don't even remember. And I'm like,

You know, Why are you calling me If you're either dating her, Or living with her, Or married her? I, Because I honestly don't remember the time frame. And I'm like,

I'm going to knock it off. And I'm, I'm now thinking, I may have gone to her and said, Hey, you know what? You know what? Is he dating you? He's bothering me.

And so I'm thinking that We had a conversation about that. One or two, maybe. You know, It could have been three. I don't want to say, I had three conversations with her. Like,

Like, At her work, Or at their house, Or, No, I'm thinking that I, You know, He obviously must have told me where she worked.

I'm thinking it was a hospital somewhere. In LA. And I just, I mean, I could have been, Again, What year was that? Where was I working?

You know, I don't, I'm trying to think of where I, When did you say they got married? I don't know. I think it was like, In 85 or 86 or something like that. You know,

We just kind of picked this up. You know, I don't know a lot about it. I mean, I could have been working in Hollywood, It sounds like, If that's where I was working. So,

I could have said, Okay, well, You know, And I went and talked to her. And just said, Hey, You know what? You know,

If he's dating you, He keeps calling me, Why don't you tell him to knock it off, Or whatever. And, You know, He would have called John. Oh, yeah.

When you said like, Hey, you know, He's calling me, He needs to knock it off, Or what have you. I mean, Was that, Was that civil?

Was there, No, there was not, I don't think there was anything, It was, If the conversation lasted A few minutes, So I can't even remember. And what is it like,

You know, We went out the lunch or anything. Right, But there was no like, Arguments or fights, Or, It didn't get heated, Or anything like that.

Not that I recall. No, You know, So you didn't have any problems with her then? No. You didn't have any issues with her? No, I mean, Let me ask you,

It seems like you didn't have any issue. Now, Did she have an issue with you, As far as, Because now you're telling her, Hey, You know, How am I stuck calling?

You know, She's like, You know, You figure she'd be threatened by you. You know, I don't know, I mean, From what you remember,

As far as when you talked to her, Maybe you didn't take it as serious, But maybe, you know, Did she, I mean, Was she throwing things at me or something? Or, You know,

As far as, You're trying to explain like, Hey, Stop calling me, You know, Stop playing games. You know, I tell you,

If the conversation, I couldn't even tell you how long the conversation, If you said, Did it last a half an hour? Did it last three minutes? Did it last 20 minutes? I can't even remember It's been so long ago.

But again, I mean, You know, What's, I mean, What's this got to do with me dating him? And, I mean,

I don't, You know, I don't have anything to do with it. And, You got something that somebody said, You know, Whatever, I mean,

Well, Like we said, We just literally got this the other day, And you're going through it. Yeah. And you see your name. And you saw me say, Oh, it's Nick's next door.

Right. And so, You know, I mean, Obviously it's like, We recognize the name. We know, You know,

You work next door to us. And so, We're trying to get some background. We're trying to figure this out. And we said, Hey, You know, I want you guys working.

I don't want you just sitting around reading the paper. Yeah. So he's kind of pushing some older cases out, Even to the guys that work active cases, Because, You know, And so we see this and we're just like, Oh,

You know, We want to talk to you about it. But of course, The only reason we did it here is because we're getting into Some pretty personal stuff in your relationship. No, I appreciate it. You know,

My husband's on the job. And we've been married a long time. You know, We don't want to take the risk. We don't want to take the risk when one of those interviews, Even when the door is closed, You know, I appreciate it.

Like I said, That's where people go when there's orals, You know, When they're doing orals, The guys will go in there and try and watch them. What are the answers to the questions, You know, I didn't know that.

Yeah. So, So we just, We just want to afford you the most privacy and Confidentiality we could. Let me ask you, Did the detectives ever reach out to you? No,

No one's ever talked to me. I don't think anybody ever talked to me about, About him. It seems like, You know, Well, I take, I'm thinking that I did talk to a detective.

Um, God, Well, What division was it? In Van Ice. Hmm. And where was I working? Um,

1986. I would have been working in Devonshire. You know, I'm thinking that I did speak to somebody. Oh, really? I couldn't tell you who it was. Because it doesn't, It doesn't say anything.

It was probably on the phone. Okay. Would have been somebody in regards to this? Yeah. Uh-huh. Yeah. Um, I don't even know if you said a name if I would remember it.

Because I worked Van Ice for a while. Oh, it did? Yeah, I worked, um, Detectives, patrols? No, Detectives. Uh-huh. Um,

When did I go to Van Ice? I worked Devonshire until 88. Then I went to Dair until 92. I worked twice at Van Ice. Both as detected. Yeah. You know, I don't know. It's like I said,

this stuff's been so long ago. Um, you know, I'm sure as soon as I walk out of here, I'll go, oh shoot, 25 things I'll remember. Um, you know,

But you'll call us or I mean, you'll just come over to our desk and tell us. Yeah, I mean, I don't know what else you need to know. Like I said, you know, we knew friends together. Um,

you know, um, I don't know what else to tell you. Well, one of the concerns I had is looking at some of the notes is, uh, some of Sherry's friends said that you and her were having a problem

because of the John situation. Well, number one, I don't know who her friends are. Um, because again, I don't, I don't recall if he did tell me where he met her.

I don't know even who these friends are. A problem, and I said, if I spoke to her, I mean, I'll go on as far as a limb. And I don't even want to say I spoke to her five times because that's probably not even true.

I can't even remember. Well, that's what I'm reading is that you guys have problems with each other and words are being exchanged and it's all relating to John. You know what? I,

I, I just, I can't say. You can't say? No, that doesn't even ring a bell. I mean, I mean,

somebody's going off on you, right? I would think, I mean, I would think. Well, when, tell me about the, the car getting broken into.

Well, my car has been broken into several times. Oh, really? Do you ever lose anything, or? Yeah. Now that you mention it,

let's see. I had a gun that was stolen. Uh-huh. Um, I had other stuff that was stolen. Not your duty gun, was it? No.

That's good. Um, Is it ever recovered? I don't know. No, I don't think so. Not that I know of. Never been notified?

No. Car's been broken into, yeah, several times. Well, like I said, we were looking at the case, and,

you know, we had read the notes as far as from, uh, Sherry's friend saying, you, you guys had problems or words, and they got heated. You know,

the reason we're asking you is, they had mentioned that, an incident at her work had occurred. And, they've also told us that an incident at her house occurred. You know what? And this is at her house

during the period of time that they're married. That's just not sound unfamiliar at all. I mean, I, you know what, I,

that's just not sound. Again, if someone says that I was at her house, and I had an incident with her, I, you know, it just doesn't sound, I,

you know, was John there? Did John say this happened? Because, and other people were there, I, I just, I don't recall.

I mean, it just doesn't sound, you know, familiar. And this is an incident where you showed up, you weren't supposed to show up, and

things got heated. At his house? Yeah. That, I, you know, I, that just doesn't sound familiar.

I mean, you know, it's not sounding familiar. So, not at all. Now you're saying not familiar because it's just, don't you remember?

Well, you know what, I would have, then I'd have to say don't remember, because I don't remember. I mean, it doesn't sound familiar. I,

I mean, would you remember something like that in your life? Well, I would think, but sort of drama involving, you know, the other woman type of thing.

Did you fight with her? You mean like we fought? Yeah. Did you ever duke it out with her? No, I remember that, right? That would be pretty.

Yeah. I would think so. Pretty specific. Yeah. Like I said, I mean, obviously, I,

you know, I mean, it just doesn't sound familiar. I mean, I mean, what are they saying? So I, I fought with her.

So, so now I mean, I, I, I'm getting the jump of the leap. Excuse me. I haven't eaten. They're saying,

okay, I fought with her. So I must have killed her. You know, I, I don't even know who these people are. I, I can't even say I met any of these people.

I mean, that's, it's insane. If it happened, I honestly don't remember it. I mean, I don't want to still tell you. No,

because I'm, I mean, I'm trying to, I'm looking at the notes and people are kind of, I mean, they're pointing the finger at you. Well, I mean,

that's not ringing a bell to me. So, you know, I don't know, you know, it's, I don't know what to tell you. I mean,

that just sounds crazy to me. Yeah. So you offhand, you don't recall that we're going into her house and having words and physically, you know, no,

I mean, her, her attacking you. No, nothing like that. No, I mean, that's,

no, nothing. No, no, not at all. Well, on some of the, you know,

this is, it occurred in 1986, right? Detectives processed the scene, things of that nature. They did fingerprints and all that stuff, you know, you know the standards.

You've been doing this longer than I have. Well, about that, I get 26 years on, going on 26. 19, so. But,

you know, as they processed everything, they did the best they could at that time, and they looked at a lot of, people are different things in this case. And, you're right. I mean,

if you guys are claiming that I'm a suspect, then, you know, I got a problem with, you know, with that. Okay. Okay.

So, you know, if you're, if you're doing this as an interrogation, you're saying, hey, I'm a suspect, well,

now I got a problem with, you know, now you're accusing me of this? Is that what you're, is that what you're saying? We're trying to figure out what happened, Stephanie. Well,

you know, do I need to get a lawyer if you're accusing me? I mean, you know, you don't have to, I mean, you know, you're here of your own free will.

No, I know, but I mean, you know, you're not under arrest, you can walk out whenever you like. You can leave whenever you like. Well,

you know, I'm trying to give you some background of, you know, how I knew him, and now you're telling me that somebody's saying that we had this big old fight, and I don't even know what you're talking about.

You know, and I don't want to, you know, you're saying I did something. Okay. We understand. I mean, how would you guys like it

if the tables were turned on you? I understand, no. Oh, that's what we're telling you. I mean, you're free to go whenever you want, if this makes you uncomfortable and you want to,

well, now you're starting to make me uncomfortable. The thing is, I mean, status did what they could at that time on the crime scene. Okay. And the burglary thing you're talking about,

that is an angle that they looked at. An angle, but now we're looking at everything else on the case, because nobody was ever arrested on the case. I don't know that. I don't know that, or not. Okay.

Now, what we'd like to do is, obviously, you know about all the DNA stuff and things of the nature that, you know, gets done on cases nowadays. You know,

if we asked you for a DNA swab, would you be willing to give us one? Maybe. Because now, now, now, now, now I'm thinking,

I probably need to talk to a lawyer. Okay. I mean, well, because I know how this stuff works, okay, don't get me wrong, you're right, it's been a long time.

Yeah. And I wish I had been recording this, because, because now it sounds like, you know, there's, you know, you're selling these people saying,

I'm a fighting with her, and now, it sounds like you're trying to, you know, I've been doing this a long time. Yeah, we know. Okay.

And now it almost sounds like you're trying to pin something on me. No. Now, I got that sense. Well, what it gets to on these, on these cases,

and you know it as well as I do, our job is to identify and eliminate some stuff. I can't believe this. If you go swab, so we can identify or eliminate you, would you be willing to do that? Maybe.

Because I know this, I, I, that's where we're at too. I mean, because right now, from looking at the evidence, it's,

you know, it's possible we may have some DNA at the location. That's great. And, we're going to do what we can to try to put this thing together. And your names in the book,

these people are pointing at you, for whatever reason. I don't know why. That's just crazy. I mean, that's just, that's absolutely crazy. And,

it would be irresponsible in our part not to look at it. I know. You guys have to do your job. And I guess someone have to contact somebody. So, That's fair.

I mean, because I know how this stuff works. I mean, I, I, I just can't believe it. That's, I mean,

we understand that. I mean, if we were in your position, I mean, we would feel the same way. I just can't even believe it. I mean, I'm shocked.

I'm really shocked. That somebody would be playing, saying that I did this. I mean, we had a fight. And so I went and killed her. I mean, come on.

That's, Okay. All right. Well, thanks for doing me the cruise. I appreciate it. Thanks for your time. Thank you.

All right, Stephanie, take care. All right. Stephanie stood up and left the interrogation room. She was followed by Detective Jaremillo,

who said, Stephanie, you are under arrest for Sherry's murder. And we have your DNA. Stephanie was handcuffed and then led back to the interrogation room.

This is absolutely crazy. Let's see, Stephanie. This is insane. Okay. Okay. Stephanie, you know you have the right to remain silent.

Do you understand? Yes. Anything you say may be against you in court. Do you understand? Yes. You have the right to the presence of an attorney

before and during any questioning. Do you understand? Yes. If you cannot afford an attorney, it won't be appointed for you for you of charge before any questioning if you want.

Do you understand? Yes. If you want to talk to us right now. No. All right. Okay. This is crazy. This is happening.

I'm like, I'm like in shock. I'm totally in shock. Stephanie pleaded not guilty and was held in custody until the trial. Unable to make the $10 million bail

that was set. The trial started on the 6th of February, 2012, almost 26 years after Sherry was murdered. The jury heard that not long before the murder,

Stephanie woke her then housemate and fellow officer in the middle of the night. She was devastated that John was getting married and she needed support. John Rutten's sister

read out a letter her mother had received from Stephanie just prior to John's wedding. It read, I'm totally in shock. I'm totally in shock. I'm totally in shock.

I'm totally in shock. I'm totally in shock. I'm totally in shock. I'm totally in love with John and the past year has really torn me up. I don't think I'll ever understand

his decision. Another officer testified that in the months leading up to the murder, Stephanie showed off lock picking tool she had obtained.

A journal found in Stephanie's apartment showed the names of two books. The complete course in professional locksmithing and modern locksmithing. The journal entry

was written the same week Sherry was murdered. A possible explanation as to why there was no sign of forced entry. Testimony after testimony

painted a picture of a jealous ex-girlfriend with the means and motive to kill Sherry. The court heard that Stephanie had taken three days off work

over the time Sherry's murder had taken place. So she had no alibi. After showing the jury a photo of John and Sherry on their wedding day,

Deputy District Attorney Shannon Presby said, a bite, a bullet, a gum barrel and a broken heart. That's the evidence

that will prove Stephanie Lazarus killed Sherry Rasmussen. Stephanie's defense lawyer, Mark Overland, argued that Stephanie's gum was stolen and that the bullets

at the crime scene could have come from many different types of revolvers. The jury heard arguments to back up the botched burglary theory

and testimony that painted a pristine picture of Stephanie and her unblemished 25 year LAPD career. The defense used her prominence

and position within the LAPD in the jury's mind that she was a murderer. But the key argument by Overland was the condition of the evidence envelope

containing the bite mark swabs. He argued that this meant the vile could have been tampered with and therefore the DNA evidence was tainted.

The judge rejected this argument and supported the admissibility of the DNA evidence. After hearing all of the evidence the jury

retired to reach their verdict. They needed little more than a day to finish. Good afternoon. We are back on the record

in people versus Lazarus. Shortly before noon the jury announced they have a verdict. We will take the verdict at this time. Before I

buzz the jurors out though I want to remind everyone that this is a court of law and I will not tolerate any outbursts of any kind in reaction to this verdict.

Buzz out the jury. People of the state of California versus Stephanie Eileen Lazarus. Case number B-A 357-423.

We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Stephanie Eileen Lazarus. Guilty of the crime of murder of Sherry Rasmussen

in violation of penal code section 187-A a felony as charged in count one of the information. We further find

the murder was of the first degree. We further find the allegation that in the commission of the above events the defendant

Stephanie Eileen Lazarus personally used a firearm namely a handgun within the meaning of penal code section 12022.5

subsection A1 to be true. This eighth day of March in the year 2012 jury number nine

four person. John Rutten read a victim impact statement to the court. The following statement Sherry Rasmussen

had a profound impact on so many people and I was proud that she agreed to be my wife. It was impossible not to notice Sherry when she entered

a room. To me her physical presence was startling. I can clearly remember the first moment I laid eyes on her. For those of us

who are directly involved or those who sat through the trial we can just begin to imagine the terror and disbelief Sherry must have felt

in her last moments of life. I'm sure that I'm alone when I say that I just can't bear thinking about these moments. But Sherry's loss

the way she died and the trial 25 years after her death has had a profound impact on many many others. The effects being a generation creating pain

for those whose lives should have never been touched by this tragic event. Again words of feeble tools for describing these impacts but there are

so many moments and so very many tears. What I can say is that I've spent and will continue to spend many hours praying for everyone involved in this tragedy.

Your Honor I am compelled to end with my feelings for the Rasmussen's. After meeting Sherry I could not help but notice the central role she played

in this fun loving and down-to-earth family. Nels and Loretta Rasmussen lost much more than a daughter when they lost Sherry. Only they fully appreciate

what I am talking about. Despite my own tremendous grief I must still apologize to them for my inability to coexist with the pain

they were enduring. I just did not have the strength. The Rasmussen's have treated me like a son and a brother. Contemplating their

profound grief and the fact that Sherry's death occurred because she met and married me brings me to my knees. I do not know

and fear I will never know how to coat with this appalling fact. I have resigned myself to praying for some measure of peace

and trying to avoid the daydreams and this pointless tragedy never occurred. On Friday the 11th of May 2012 Judge Robert Perry

sentenced Stephanie. The total sentence imposed is 27 years to life in the state penitentiary. 25 years to life for first-degree murder

and an additional two years for personal use of a firearm. He credited her over 1,000 days for good behavior and a time

already served. The police officers union issued a statement saying they hoped the case would not tarnish the reputation of thousands of dedicated police officers.

LAPD spokeswoman Mary Grady said the department had begun the process of figuring out why the original detectives failed to consider Stephanie as a suspect.

She said we are going to look at everything we can to bring some justice to the family. Los Angeles police chief Charlie Beck who had worked closely

with Stephanie during her career said not only did the family of Sherry Rasmussen lose a wife and a daughter a life that can never

be returned but also the LAPD family felt a sense of betrayal to have an officer commit such a terrible crime. I am truly sorry for the loss of your wife your daughter.

I am also sorry it took us so long to solve this case and to bring a measure of justice to this tragedy. Stephanie immediately launched an appeal

during which she raised the following charges. Her right to due process had been denied by the more than two decade long delay in bringing charges.

The lower court should have quashed search warrants for her home and computers. The taped pre-arrest interview should not have been admitted at trial. Her ability

to defend herself in court was compromised because one witness had died and some evidence had been destroyed and she wasn't allowed

to present evidence of other burglaries in the area at her trial. A three justice panel from California's second district court of appeal

made their ruling in July 2015. They found the following. She confessed to her roommate, wrote in her journal and confided in a letter to

Rutton's mother her deep-seated unhappiness and distress over Rutton's marriage to Rasmussen. The appellant was off work the day of the killing.

She had no alibi. The gun used to commit the murder was consistent with the gun owned by the appellant and the bullets used by the appellant

required ammunition. Within weeks the appellant reported a gun that matched the likely murder weapon Stalin but only to Santa Monica police not to her own department

which was investigating the murder. The evidence of motive and the circumstantial evidence combined with the presence of the appellant's DNA on a wound inflicted on the victim

provide convincing evidence of the appellant's guilt. There is nearly an inescapable inference that the appellant confronted, and murdered Rasmussen. Stephanie's appeal

was denied her conviction upheld. She then tried another appeal to the Supreme Court the highest court in the state. However, the Supreme Court refused to even

hear the appeal. In 2010 the Rasmussen's attempted to sue the LAPD over their handling of the case and the fact they didn't investigate Stephanie originally

despite their requests to do so. The trial judge and the appeals court both reluctantly tossed out the lawsuit as it had been filed too late. They said even the most

liberal reading of the statute of limitations prevented them from filing a lawsuit after 1998. The Californian Supreme Court refused to take up the appeal. Ruling the lower courts were correct.

It was 12 years too late to file a lawsuit. During the trial prosecutors said the following Stephanie misused her police training in the most profound way imaginable

by utilizing that training and experience to commit murder and cover up her crime. She betrayed the trust placed in her by the Los Angeles police department

and by the people of Los Angeles in order to pursue her own murderous ends. Her profound narcissism led her to kill and continues to motivate her denial of responsibility.

Stephanie knew to stage the crime scene to make it look like a burglary. She knew how to avoid leaving other evidence like fingerprints. But the idea that saliva from a bite mark

could lead to her undoing was inconceivable at that time. She could be eligible for parole consideration after serving 16 years and eight months. However, District Attorney Steve Cooley said

given the circumstances it is likely Stephanie will spend the rest of her life behind bars.