Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just recently noticed the case of Stephanie Lazarus. She was a LA police officer and detective that bumped off the wife of a man she dated. It was DNA evidence that got her. If it were not for DNA, would she have gotten away with the crime?
I remember reading about this crime. It's amazing that the DNA evidence, saliva taken from a bite mark on the victim's arm, was not investigated. Since 1986, her murder was assumed to be the result of her surprising two burglars when she arrived home. Evidence pointing to LAPD officer in murder case ignored, suit claims - LA Times
On several occasions, Lazarus asked the detectives the reason for the questioning. They repeatedly assuaged her concern by telling her they were just doing their jobs and saying that they had brought her down to the jail to spare her the embarrassment of being questioned in the office.
When it became obvious to her that she was a suspect, Lazarus told Stearns and Jaramillo that they were "starting to make me uncomfortable" and asked whether she needed a lawyer. They told her she was free to leave if she wanted. When Lazarus did leave, she was intercepted by other detectives waiting in the hallway. As Lazarus sat handcuffed, the transcript showed, one detective loosened her handcuffs and Stearns told her they would put her jacket over the handcuffs to conceal her arrest. At the end, as she was waiting to be booked, Lazarus struggled to remove her wedding band. An unidentified person offered her advice: "Saliva works wonders."
I remember reading about this crime. It's amazing that the DNA evidence, saliva taken from a bite mark on the victim's arm, was not investigated. Since 1986, her murder was assumed to be the result of her surprising two burglars when she arrived home.
Does anyone know around what year DNA evidence technology and the law behind it was good enough to convict her?
Does anyone know around what year DNA evidence technology and the law behind it was good enough to convict her?
I don't. It would be interesting to know, though.
Can you imagine this LAPD officer working investigations for the next couple of decades, after committing this kind of brutal murder?
From a link from one of the above articles, "One veteran officer told the Los Angeles Times, "Never in my wildest imagination would I ever think she could do something like this."
She had been described as "bubbly" and "vivacious" in a story about her private investigation firm, Unique Investigations, in the Ventura County Star in 2000.
She was the type who made homemade soaps and chocolate-covered cherries to give her neighbors for Christmas."
I've seen this story on a couple different Cold Case shows.
Yes, she would have gotten away with it if DNA had not advanced like it did. The technology definitely wasn't there when the murder occurred in 86 and it's extremely fortuitous that someone was forward thinking enough to save that swab of the bite mark.
I thought the technology was there in the mid 90's but I'm not sure.
One of the shows said several people urged the police to look at Lazarus when it happened because she was stalking the couple. She had shown up at the victim's workplace at least once. It was probably because she was police that they didn't investigate her as deeply as they should have.
The defense claimed that Lazarus' DNA was planted on the swab, because the package had been there so long it was damaged. But the point was made that the swab also had the victim's DNA and where would some nefarious character have acquired that? Even if it was the original swab that would have had the victim's dna, and someone had added Lazarus' dna, then there should have been a 3rd source of the person who really made that bite mark if it wasn't Lazarus.
She has a sort of wild eyed look now, I wonder if she had the crazy eyes back then?
Thanks for the interrogation video Chloe, I had only seen a few minutes of it from the crime shows.
This is the first I knew that John, the victim's husband, and Stephanie stayed in contact over the years. John has refused to be interviewed, and I believe he didn't even come back to CA for the trial. Wonder if he ever suspected Stephanie?
Stephanie exhausts me. All the hemming and hawing and interrupting herself to throw in inconsequential detail after inconsequential and prefacing virtually every statement with how long ago this all happened and she doesn't remember for SURE.
The murder happened in 86, the interrogation was somewhere around 09 I think, so 23 years. I understand her not remembering some details of her life, but she tried really hard to minimize her relationship with John, and only admitted to an ongoing romantic relationship when she realized they weren't going away as easily or quickly as they did in the first investigaion, then they still had to drag it out of her. And not remembering any confrontations she "may or may not have had" (her words) with her ex's new wife? Ha! That's the kind of thing everyone remembers every detail of.
Ok I think I'll try to watch the last half of the interrogation if she doesn't make me tear my hair out first.
She definitely has that "you took my man and I'm gonna kill you" look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LillyLillyLilly
Thanks for the interrogation video Chloe, I had only seen a few minutes of it from the crime shows.
This is the first I knew that John, the victim's husband, and Stephanie stayed in contact over the years. John has refused to be interviewed, and I believe he didn't even come back to CA for the trial. Wonder if he ever suspected Stephanie?
Stephanie exhausts me. All the hemming and hawing and interrupting herself to throw in inconsequential detail after inconsequential and prefacing virtually every statement with how long ago this all happened and she doesn't remember for SURE.
The murder happened in 86, the interrogation was somewhere around 09 I think, so 23 years. I understand her not remembering some details of her life, but she tried really hard to minimize her relationship with John, and only admitted to an ongoing romantic relationship when she realized they weren't going away as easily or quickly as they did in the first investigaion, then they still had to drag it out of her. And not remembering any confrontations she "may or may not have had" (her words) with her ex's new wife? Ha! That's the kind of thing everyone remembers every detail of.
Ok I think I'll try to watch the last half of the interrogation if she doesn't make me tear my hair out first.
Your welcome... and as said, I got the impression she's trying too hard and definitely has something to hide. I don't buy a lot of what she said... like the confrontation statements.
I read in one of the many links that he didn't suspect Stephanie... "the thought never crossed my mind that she would be involved." I did read that he testified at trial.
Last edited by ChloeC; 05-25-2016 at 11:56 AM..
Reason: ... added quote
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.