The Fifth Stage - Senior Film Project by Mollie Goldberg

Jayne Goldberg (left), Sherri Rae Rasmussen

at Club Med, early 1980's.

Background
Sherri Rae Rasmussen was murdered on February 24, 1986. Her murder was finally solved 23 years later with the arrest of LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus. Lazarus was convicted of first degree murder in March 2012 and sentenced to 27 years to life.

Sherri was Jayne Goldberg's best friend. They met at UCLA Medical Center, when they were both working as nurses there. They were roommates in Sherri's condo for three years. Jayne met her future husband, Michael Goldberg at the hospital.

Jayne and Michael's daughter is Mollie Goldberg. At the oral arguments for Lazarus' criminal appeal, Jayne told me that her daughter Mollie was graduating that weekend with a degree in Film & Digital Media. For her senior project, Mollie produced a short film titled The Fifth Stage. Jayne indicated to me the film was about the myth of closure.

The Fifth Stage
The Fifth Stage is in reference to the five stages of normal grief that Elizabeth Kubler-Ross outlined in her 1969 book On Death and Dying. The five stages are:

1. Denial and Isolation
2. Anger
3. Barganing
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

You can read a short synopsis about the five stages at Grief.com.

In the film, Mollie interviews her mother and Nels and Loretta Rasmussen.

Here is Mollie's introduction to her film:

 This is my senior thesis film. For those of you who don't know already, my mom's best friend, Sherri, was murdered in 1986. The case went cold until I was 16 and my mom got a call from an LAPD detective saying they were reopening the case. As I learned more about Sherri, I noticed we shared a middle name, and as the years progressed and her murderer (an LAPD cop) was tried, convicted, and sentenced, I learned more fully what it means to grieve, to feel pain, and to lose someone. And how a person can have such an irreplaceable position in the history of your existence, without you ever knowing them. This film was a way for me to understand the grief my mom and Sherri's parents have felt every day for the last 30 years. Through meditations on certain imagery and reenactments of their memories of grief, I try to place myself within the scope of their loss.

The Fifth Stage from Mollie Goldberg on Vimeo.

Stephanie Lazarus Criminal Appeal, Oral Arguments

 

Ronald Reagan State Office Building

300 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA

UPDATE 6/6/19 edited for spelling
UPDATE 7:15 PM edited for grammar, spelling, clarity
June 11, 2015
When I arrive at the state building where the local appellate court is held, I stop at the security station to see if it’s possible to photograph the catwalks inside the atrium space. I've tried to describe this space before, but there's nothing like a photo to give readers a sense of what one is talking about. The building’s security manager is kind but says that because of “security” I cannot take photographs. I thank him for his time then head to the second floor cafeteria to get a bottle of water.

The courtroom is one floor up. I talked about the Ronald Reagan State Office Building back in April 2001, when I was here for the oral arguments in the Phil Spector appeal. The center of the entire building is an atrium space for the first four floors.  There are open catwalk bridges that crisscross back and forth for the second and third floors. On the ground floor are trees, huge murals and animal statues.

As I exit the cafeteria, I look up and there are Jayne and Michael Goldberg right outside the courtroom on a catwalk, one floor up. Jayne is giving me a big wave. I can see her smile.

Jayne comes down one floor to greet me and we take the stairs back up together. We both marvel at how beautiful the space is. To me, the atrium space is very serene and peaceful this early in the morning.

8:22 AM
The Rasmussen family arrive. Nels, Loretta, and their two daughters Connie and Teresa, are with them. Hugs are exchanged all around. Jayne tells everyone that her daughter Mollie is graduating from college in a few days with a degree in Film & Digital Media, with an emphasis on production. Her senior film is titled The Fifth Stage, and cover the topic of grief and the myth of closure. It will be screened Friday and will be up on VIMEO soon. Once it’s on the web, T&T will link to it.

8:43 AM
We’re inside the courtroom. There’s seating along the back wall facing the judges. There is also seating along the two side walls, but those are roped off at the moment. As the back area fills, the court staff open up additional seating areas.

Directly to my right are a group of five interns. An older woman arrives and asks me to move my bag so she can sit beside her interns.

The appeals court does not utilize court reporters. The proceedings are tape recorded. Attorneys start to arrive.

A few moments later I see Lazarus’ mother Carol, her sister Judi arrive. With them is a blond woman who I saw attend the trial.

A tall, sleek looking man with a long gray ponytail gets up from the well area and goes over to speak to Judi. This is Donald Tickle, Lazarus’ state appointed appellate attorney.

Sometime in early 2014 Lazarus moved from the Central Valley Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, California, to the California Institution for Women,  in Corona, CA. This location is much closer to her family members in Los Angeles.


Many people have asked me about Lazarus’ marriage. Lazarus’ husband filed for divorce Feb 13, 2013. The divorce is not finalized yet.


A large group of young people arrive. With them is a familiar female DDA face I’ve seen around the criminal court building. This group is directed to sit in the seats on the right side of the well of the court.

8:50 AM
Matthew McGough arrives. His hair is quite short. He must have gotten it cut since I last saw him.

Court staff continue to direct late arrivals to the remaining seats. It’s a mix of older suited men and young intern-looking men and women. Now, almost every seat in the gallery is taken. 

I note the carpeting and seats. It’s a medium green with hints of teal. More people continue to arrive.

9:03 AM
Detective Greg Stearns, and DDA Paul Nunez arrive. Stearns, along with his partner Dan Jaramillo, interviewed then arrested Lazarus; DDA Nunez co-prosecuted the case along with DDA Shannon Presby. I count only 3 or 4 empty seats left in the entire gallery.

The large bench has seats for four justices. The lower part of the bench is a matching tile/marble to the carpeting and seats with the top of the bench a polished dark wood.  The wall behind the justices is the same color of stone.  There is a dropped ceiling over the three gallery seating areas. Subdued light comes in through high mission style windows.

About a minute later, the four justices come out and take the bench. The Presiding Justice, Norman L. Epstein, states this is District Four. Justice Epstein informs the gallery he is not part of the three judge panel. The three judges consist of:

Associate Justice Thomas L. Willhite, Jr.
Associate Justice Nora M. Manalla
Associate Justice Audrey B. Collins 



This is not the same panel that heard the appeal of Nels & Loretta Rasmussen in their suit to sue the LAPD over the investigation into their daughter's death.

The panel will call the shorter time cases first. The panel calls People v. Lazarus. I’m relieved. We won’t have to wait here through several other cases.

Appellant attorney is Donald Tickle. The respondent for the state is Deputy Attorney General IV, Michael A. Katz.

Tickle starts off arguing the pre-accusation delay and which standard the defense argues should apply. The trial court ruled the federal standard should apply.  Tickle tells the panel the trial court said [California] Prop 8 didn’t have the independent force and effect.  Tickle argues that even negligent delay is sufficient.  The state, didn’t do any testing for 23 years after the crime. Funds were not allocated for a cold hit data base. Tickle cites Nelson to support his argument.

The justices respond that they don’t second guess a department [organization’s?] decisions on the allocation of funds, to get around to doing it [testing DNA]. One of the justices proposes, “Let’s say, if they did have the technology. ... she had 20 years of freedom. ... How is that prejudicial?”

Tickle comes back with arguing the profiler and mini filer testing. He also argues that the delay [in testing] must be for a valid police purpose. Tickle argues that several individuals identified her as a suspect after the crime. [I miss how this is relevant to Tickle’s argument.]

One justice asks, "Frankly Mr. Tickle, .... was any legitimate [explanation] ever offered at trial for the defendant’s DNA found on the victim at or near the time of death?" Tickle replies that the burden is not on the defense to show identity.

I believe the trial court answers that they balance the [?] for delay against the evidence. “What is the prejudice?” Tickle argues that the only evidence that there was a bite mark was on the envelope. The dentist could not say definitively it was a bite mark.

[I want to raise my hand and and say, What about the coroner’s testimony!!! She testified it was a bite mark! What about Jennifer Francis who testified  she saw a good deposit of amylase in the swabbed sample? Amylase is an enzyme and a component of saliva.]

One of the justices responds, “So what if it was a hickey? ... It’s her DNA.”

Tickle then goes on to argue that the defense position is, that it’s an error to match random match equivalency. The result is the jury will under estimate the possibility of another person.

I believe a justice asks, how does that get to the delay that causes prejudice. How does the delay, ... verses what the evidence proves?

Tickle brings up the fact that male DNA, not attributable to the victim’s husband was on the wall [of the stairs leading down to the garage]. There was male DNA on a blanket. The justices respond, “But none of that goes to explain your client’s DNA on the victim.”

Tickle argues something to the effect that she would have been injured in a fight and that not a single witness stated that Lazarus had any marks on her. Justice Manalla replies, “There were witnesses who testified about her physical superiority.”

Tickle and the justices go back and forth as to whether or not Lazarus could have had an accomplice Tickle argues that random match probability is not equivalent to no other person.  The justices come back that what Tickle is arguing is purely speculation.

I believe it’s Justice Manalla who states, “I get back to the common sense notion here. What is the prejudice here? ... That your client’s DNA was found in the struggle. ... You’re not arguing insufficiency, given what that argument was. Surely the jury was entitled to conclude she was there beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Tickle states the defense is not arguing insufficient evidence.  It’s whether there is a reasonable possibility that the jury [could have seen the evidence a different way?].

The court responds: It seems to me inescapable that your client was present at or near the time of the murder. It seems irrelevant that there was DNA on a stereo wire or elsewhere.  ... There were no chain of custody issues claimed at trial. Tickle states he is not claiming [chain of custody?] ..

[Given the state of the victim’s body .. the bite mark was at or near the time of death.]

The justices state, “It's not as if your client is claiming she showed up there, they had a fight, she bit her there and someone else killed her."

Tickle still argues that the expert could not say it was a bite mark. “The court is accepting the prosecution’s fallacy.  ... That goes to the weight of how you weight the evidence.” Tickle cites [Brown v. McDaniel?], a US Superior Court decision.

I believe the court responds that, [the case cited], that goes to the DNA did not belong to the defendant.

Tickle argues there is reason to believe there were male burglars in the neighborhood at the time of the incident. He also agues that no witness said that Lazarus remained obsessed with the victim’s husband after their last meeting.

A justice asks, “Is it your argument that irrespective of DNA percentages [the justice does mention the DNA numbers, the one in so many billions of random probability] .... the jury could conclude, find ...”

Tickle responds, “Could find reasonable doubt of the prosecution’s theory. ... Is there reason to believe there’s reasonable doubt? ... The 3rd party culpability evidence was not admitted. Tickle brings up the testimony of former FBI profiler Mark Safarik.

[Did Mr. Tickle just say, “If this is going the way I think....”?]

Tickle argues with the court that regarding the bite mark, no witness testified that wound was inflicted at the time of death.

Tickle’s time is up and Mr. Katz gets up to argue the respondent position.

Katz starts off by offering to counter Mr. Tickle’s last argument about the bite mark.

"Page three of the respondent’s brief. ... The coroner identified the pattern injury was consistent with a bite mark. ... The coroner looked under the wound and saw hemorrhage but no inflammation." She testified the wound occurred on or about the time of death.

Katz brings up the DNA under the fingernails.

He mentions [Bradley? Brown? v. McDaniel] and then moves onto the merits of pretrial delay and that the federal rules apply.  He argues the federal standard regarding the delay. 

I’m totally lost because up until this point, I’ve only had a copy of the appellant’s brief. I’ve not seen the respondent’s reply brief yet.



Lazarus’ brother Steven arrives.

Justice Willhite brings up the issue that the state standard was not statute, but legislation passed by the voters, to essentially over rule a series of [?] by the Superior Court ...

I become further lost in the legal complexities as the justices and Katz cite prior case law rulings.

The issue Katz and the justices are going back and forth on is the federal law verses the state Prop 8, and which applies. The justices do say that, at the end of the day, does it make a difference in this case? [Basically not really because where's the prejudice.]

Justice Manalla adds, “There is modest prejudice at best ... not just for delay. .. They [police] don’t have to test every case as soon as they get it.”

Katz is finished. The justices tell Tickle that even though he went over on his allotted time, they will allow him five minutes for rebuttal.

Tickle goes back to arguing the pre-accusation delay again.  He also mentions that there is equally substantive evidence of DNA of others that engaged in a violent struggle.  He backs of off the bit mark. Tickle is back to the burglary theory.

And that’s it. Arguments are over. We get up and make our way outside. 


I believe Mr. Katz greeted Nels and Loretta after the oral arguments.

Outside the courtroom on the third floor catwalk, DDA Nunez and Detective Stearns speak to the Rasmussen family, Jayne and Michael Goldberg, Matthew and myself. DDA Nunez tells the family that he did not hear anything that would cause him any alarm.

It appeared to me that the justices were leaning towards agreeing with the trial court decision.

Nunez tells Nels and Loretta that DDA Shannon Presby would have been here, however, he just finished a trial and obtained a conviction of an LAPD officer [Mary O'Callaghan], and he was taking a few days off.  Someone said that was good news. There is a short discussion of Presby's case. Detective Stearns responded, something to the effect of, the officer went a little bit overboard. This LA Times story gives the relevant details of what happened to Alesia Thomas.

Appeal: What Happens Next
We then talked about how long it will take for the justices to publish their opinion. It could be as quickly as a few weeks or it could take closer to 90 days.

If Lazarus’ appeal is denied, she could appeal to the California Supreme Court. However, that appeal isn’t paid for by the state. She would have to pay for that appeal herself. The other issue is, even if the appeal is submitted to the California Supreme Court, they are not obligated to review it. 

The California Supreme Court rejects cases all the time. I've been told that they don't review cases where the facts are similar to other cases they've already reviewed. Additionally, I've been told that appeals at that level can be political.

After the California Superior Court, Stephanie’s last recourse is a federal habeas corpus appeal. Those take a very long time; many years.

What About Parole
The next discussion was parole. Because the crime occurred in 1986, Lazarus serves her time under the sentencing laws in effect at that time. This means she gets good time credits for every day she served in county as well as in prison. Convicted murderers under today's sentencing guidelines must serve 85% of their sentence.

I remember right before the verdict, sources indicated to me that Lazarus' first opportunity at parole would be around 15 or 16 years after sentencing.

The next item discussed is what would happen when she is before the parole board. It would be a very rare thing indeed if Lazarus is granted parole the first time before the board. It's pretty much a given that won't happen. It's my personal opinion that she would probably have to serve at least the 27 years before the parole board would consider her for parole.

It's possible she would need to admit to the crime, however, that's not necessarily the case. There are instances of parole being granted without assuming responsibility. At this point, she is still pursuing an appeal. If she pursues an appeal to the California Supreme Court and then onto Federal Court, that might not be looked upon favorably by the parole board.

After all the questions are answered, everyone says their goodbyes and makes their way to the elevators. Looking over the catwalk as I start to head home, I see Lazarus’ family speaking to Mr. Tickle in the cafeteria.

I hope to have an audio file and transcript of the oral arguments uploaded soon.

Appellant Opening Brief
Respondent's Reply Brief
Appellant's Reply Brief

Stephanie Lazarus Criminal Appeal - Appellant's Opening Brief

 

Stephanie Lazarus prison intake photo

Last week, I reported that Nels and Loretta Rasmussen's wrongful death lawsuit against Stephanie Lazarus is on hold until her criminal appeal is resolved.  Lazarus was convicted of the 1986 cold case murder of their daughter, Sherri Rae Rasmussen. Lazarus was found guilty of first degree murder in March 2012 and sentenced to 27 years to life.

Lazarus' opening brief was filed in June 2013. You can read the brief HERE.

The State Attorney General filed their response last week. I will post the respondent's brief as soon as I obtain a copy.

I am working on another Lazarus story and hope to publish soon.

Rasmussen v. Stephanie Lazarus - Civil Case

Sherri Rae Rasmussen, murdered by Stephanie Lazarus

UPDATED 11/14: Clarity

Tuesday, November 12, 2013
There was a hearing today in the Rasmussen family civil suit against Stephanie Lazarus for the murder of their daughter, Sherri.  Nels and Loretta Rasmussen are suing Lazarus for wrongful death. Although the Rasmussen's lost their suit against the Los Angeles Police Department, their case against Lazarus continues to go forward.

I arrived at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse at about 8:15 AM. The line to get in the building was wrapped half way around the side street. I didn't know if I would make it inside in time. My friend Matthew McGough arrived a few minutes later. 

Up on the fifth floor, the hallway was a sea of dark suited men and women.  There were very few casually dressed people in the hallway. John Taylor was sitting on a hallway bench, waiting for Dept. 48 to open. He was wearing a medium grayish-beige suit with a subdued pattern in the threads.

When I arrived John Taylor indicated that it would just be a status conference and a request to the judge to trail Lazarus' criminal appeal. For her criminal appeal, Lazarus is represented by attorney Donald Tickle of Volcano, California. Once her appeal has been heard and ruled on then Taylor would present a motion for summary judgement against Lazarus in the civil case.

This is the same strategy Taylor used for the Clarkson family lawsuit against Phil Spector, and to me it makes the most sense. Taylor also indicated that Mark Overland is Lazarus' attorney of record.  Apparently, Overland's criminal defense of Lazarus also included representation for a single appeal. Overland's representation is not an 'appeal' per se, but a defense. I'm not surprised he would defend Lazarus in the civil case and not the criminal appeal.  Appeals are usually handled by counsel who specialize in those cases. Overland did not make the hearing today.

When Dept. 48 opened, we entered and sat in the front row.  Most of these courtrooms in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse are quite small.  They are not like the courtrooms that are depicted on most crime dramas, with lots of space and a stately bench for the judge. They are little square boxes. In the gallery, there were six seats across on each side of the single center aisle, and four rows, making a total of 48 individual seats.

Due to the fiscal crisis in California, there have been severe budget cuts to the LA County Superior Court. The court no longer provides a court reporter in civil cases. If a plaintiff wants to have a record of a court proceeding, they must pay for a court reporter themselves. It's my understanding that a court reporter can cost $750.00 a day, or $350.00 for half a day. And, there isn't a deputy in the courtroom either.  They were replaced by a civilian assistant of some sort, who ends up helping the clerk with their work. The court clerk does keep minutes of the judge's rulings for the case file, but that's it.  Civil cases that request a jury trial (as opposed to a bench trial), must pay the court a deposit ($150.00) and pay jury fees.  The clerk prepares a bill to the plaintiff at the end of the week.

When Judge Elizabeth Allen White takes to the bench, my first impression is of a woman straight out of the 50's. She's wearing glasses and has short brown hair. Three other cases are heard first. There is a final ruling in a car jacking case where an individual was injured. There was a case against the Walt Disney company that is given a trial date in October, next year. Another case where only one attorney showed up. The defendant's counsel did not respond to some motions filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's attorney then decided on a bench trial instead of a jury trial.  Next, the Rasmussen case was called.

Taylor tells Judge White where the criminal appeal stands regarding the filed briefs. The Attorney General's responding brief was filed on November 8, 2013. A trial date of May 12, 2014 is put on Judge White's calendar. A final, pre-trial status conference of May 7, 2013 is also scheduled.  And that's it.

At minimum, it could take at least two months or more for Lazarus' defense to file a responding brief to the Attorney General's response.  It will probably be another couple of months after that before oral arguments are scheduled.  Then, the state has about two months to issue a ruling on the appeal.

I am still trying to get a copy of Lazarus' appeal brief, just to see the arguments that were raised. For some unknown reason, the LA County Library has not been able to locate a copy of the brief yet.  As soon as I get it, I will publish it.

Once Taylor moves for a summary judgement in this case, it will be up to Judge White to make a determination as to what the damages will be. In wrongful death suits, it's usually the spouse who is in first position to sue. Next in line after a spouse are children; after that are parents.  It's my understanding that John Ruetten does not want any part of this civil lawsuit against Lazarus. Since John and Sherri didn't have children, that leaves her parents.  There's loss of love, affection and pain and suffering.  It's difficult to understand how a value can be placed on a human life, but somehow, the court must do exactly that.

It's unknown what Mark Overland's strategy will be, once the criminal appeal is finished. Most likely, Taylor will put Nels and Loretta Rasmussen on the stand to describe the relationship they had with their daughter. From that testimony, Judge White will first decide compensatory damages then punitive damages. It's my understanding that Lazarus' pension cannot be attached by a lawsuit. The modest home she bought in Simi Valley after the 1994 earthquake is now in her husband's name. There are no big assets to go after, like there were in the Spector case. However, once Judge White makes her ruling on damages, that will follow Lazarus for life.

After the hearing, Matthew and I dropped by the Law Library to check on the status of obtaining a copy of Lazarus' appeal.  Next hearing date: May 7th, 2014.

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Rasmussen Family Civil Suit

Photo © Loretta Rasmussen; used with permission.

Left to right: Teresa Lane, Nels Rasmussen, Sherri Rae Rasmussen, 

Loretta Rasmussen, Connie Rasmussen, on November 23rd, 1985, Sherri's wedding.

UPDATED 3//2 spelling, clarity, new link
On February 20th, 2013, the California Supreme Court declined the Rasmussen family's petition to review the lower court's decision in their civil suit against the LAPD. 

Here is the LA Times story on the decision.

In 2010, the Rasmussen's sued the LAPD for violation of civil rights, wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent concealment.

On Tuesday, I spoke to the Rasmussen family attorney, John Taylor, to find out what's next for the Rasmussen family.

T&T: Is this the end of the road for the Rasmussen family's lawsuit?

JT: No.

T&T: Are there any future appeals planned?

JT: The appeals for this specific lawsuit are over.  We're exploring other avenues of legal recourse.

T&T: How did Nels Rasmussen take the news?

JT: They're disappointed.  The Court of Appeal said that they should have brought an action [against the LAPD] by 1998.  If they had brought a lawsuit in 1998, what would the lawsuit have been?  What specific charge could they have made? It wasn't until Stephanie's arrest in June 2009 that the family's suspicions were confirmed.

T&T: You told the Los Angeles Times that the LAPD promised a full investigation into what went wrong in 1986.  Who made that promise?

JT: Several people within the LAPD.  More than one person, on more than one occasion, assured the Rasmussen family that there would be an investigation into the handling of the case in 1986.  As of today, we're not aware of any investigation into the handling of the case at the time of the murder.  The LAPD owes it to the Rasmussen family.  And also, you'd think they would do it for the future, to find out what went wrong so no other family would go through what these people did.

Twenty-seven years ago this past Sunday, February 24th, Sherri Rae Rasmussen was murdered by Stephanie Lazarus.  T&T will continue to follow any future developments in this case.

Initial Appellate Court Decision

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Sherri Rasmussen Family Civil Suit, II

Sherri Rae Rasmussen, '85

UPDATE 5:20 PM
I emailed John Taylor for a comment on the decision.  Here is his response:

First paragraph of opinion says it all: unfortunately cannot get to merits of case because of statute of limitation, which works an injustice here. 

No court or investigative body has ever said that this wasn't a cover up. The Rasmussens have incredible patience and perseverance and will continue pursuing their judicial remedies. 

California Courts of Appeal Decision
I just received the email notification a few minutes ago.  The California Courts of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision rejecting the civil suit filed by the Rasmussen family against the Los Angeles Police Department. HERE is the 14 page opinion issued by the justices.

The law firm of Taylor & Ring filed the complaint on behalf of the Rasmussen family.  It is unknown at this time if the Rasmussen family will appeal to the California Supreme Court, which is not obligated to hear the appeal.

My thoughts and prayers are with the Rasmussen family.

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Sherri Rasmussen Family Civil Suit, Part II

California Courts of Appeal, Second District

300 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA

UPDATE 9/25/12: spelling, clarity

September 20th, 2012
Continued from initial post....

When I first arrived at the building I cleared security pretty quickly. I was startled by the guards question asking if I was wearing a belt.  If I had a belt, it had to be removed before I walked through the security scanners.  Once you enter the plaza, you see that the building is structured with an open atrium center that has large animal statues, seating areas and trees.  There are open walkways around all four sides of the upper floors.  You can see the entrance to the third floor courtroom from the open plaza.

I headed up to the cafe on the second floor to grab something to eat.  I skipped breakfast since Mr. Sprocket had to get out the door early and I worked on household projects until it was time to leave for downtown.

As soon as I entered the seating area, I saw Nels and Loretta Rasmussen sitting with their attorney, John Taylor of Taylor Ring Law Firm. Also sitting at the table was a pretty blond woman, Holly Boyer.  John Taylor mentioned to me that Holly was "very sharp" and she would be the one presenting arguments to the court.  I exchanged smiles and hugs with Nels and Loretta and then went to get a banana from the cafe.

Holly told me that she has argued before the Courts of Appeal before, so this would not be her first rodeo.  Most of the conversation from Nels and Loretta centered around their great-grandchild, Hannah, 4, who I previously saw at the sentencing hearing.  (Hannah is the daughter of Rachel, who is the daughter of Connie, Sherri's older sister.  During the trial, we saw 1985 Christmas photos of Sherri with Rachel as young baby. Sprocket.)

This appeal that has been filed by Taylor Ring is not the typical sort of appeal in front of the court, since there has been no trial with a verdict.  I believe it is Holly who states that what the LAPD filed is called a demurrer.

There were seven cases on the court's calendar, and it was not listed when the Rasmussen case would be argued.  As it got closer to 1 PM, we made our way to the third floor and the single appellate courtroom.

Security to get inside the courtroom is tight.  No electronics whatsoever are allowed in without prior approval from the court.  (For example, during the Spector oral arguments, Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times received special permission to use her laptop to cover the hearing.) Once you pass through security, your electronic items are taken from you and you are given a plastic clip-on badge with a number.  Those numbers correspond to drawers in a special cabinet right outside the courtroom where they are stored by security.

You enter the courtroom from the very back of the gallery on the right.  The judge's bench is along the back wall.  In the center of the courtroom is the well area, with gallery seating on all three sides.   We are the first people to take a seat in the gallery and are able to get seats front row center.  Holly enters the well, checks in with the clerk and takes one of the several extra seats in the well, where only attorneys are allowed.

One of the officers demonstrates to all the waiting counsel how to raise and lower the podium so that the microphone is at the proper height for the individual presenting arguments.  There is no court reporter.  The arguments are tape recorded.  I do not know if it is possible to obtain an audio copy of the proceedings before a decision has been rendered, or even at all.

Four justices sit on Division Eight of the Second District.  Any three of the justices will be assigned a case for review.  A majority of two makes the decision.  The Justices are: Tricia A. Bigelow, presiding justice,  Laurence D. Rubin, Madeleine I. Flier and Elizabeth A. Grimes.  When the justices come out,  Justice Rubin is not with them.  Justice Bigelow explains that Douglas Sortino has been (temporarily) assigned by the court system to help out while Justice Rubin is away.  Justice Sortino is a former prosecutor.  He was the original prosecutor assigned to the Phil Spector trial.  DDA Alan Jackson took over the case when Sortino was appointed to the bench.  During the first Phil Spector trial, the defense called Sortino as a court witness to testify outside the presence of the jury.

Justice Bigelow advised counsel that the proceedings were tape recorded.  For those cases where Justice Rubin was one of the deciding voices, counsel had the right to have their case argued when Justice Rubin was available.  Otherwise, he would be listening to their arguments via the audio recording.  Bigelow also advised counsel that they have read all the briefs and issued for each case a "tentative opinion," so that counsel can tailor their arguments.

 The first case argued was an individual representing themselves, suing Kaiser Permamente over an emergency surgery performed on her.  The courts of appeal tentatively affirmed the lower court's verdict.

The second case argued was a divorce case where the husband was appealing the lower court ruling that he had to pay his ex-wife's legal fees.  The courts of appeal tentatively affirmed the lower court's ruling.

The third case, the courts of appeal tentatively reversed the lower court ruling.

The fourth case was the Rasmussen case, and it would be heard by Bigelow, Rubin and Grimes.  The tentative ruling was to affirm the lower court's dismissal on the basis of statute of limitations.  The court felt the latest the Rasmussens could have filed a claim against the LAPD was in 2000, since their last contact with the LAPD was in 1998.

Holly Boyer passionately argues the Rasmussen case, and against the court's tentative ruling.

Boyer argued there was no way for the Rasmussens to know the police conduct was intentional until the arrest.  They only learned in 2009 that the LAPD knew all along Lazarus was Sherri's killer.  Boyer argues the statute of limitations should not begin running until 2009.

Boyer states, "It doesn't become actionable until the motive behind it becomes known to the Rasmusssen family."

Then the Bane Act is discussed.  The Rasmussens allege they were intimidated by the LAPD to give up their pursuit of Sherri's killer, whom they suspected all along to be Stephanie Lazarus.

Not long after the Bane Act is discussed, Justice Bigelow reminds Ms. Boyer that these are only tentative rulings, and that's the purpose of oral arguments.  Justice Bigelow then expresses her condolences to the Rasmussen family, "I'm sorry for the loss that they have suffered."

There is some more argument about whether the operative date is when the plaintiff's knew. Boyer points out a section of the Bane Act regarding intimidation.  How can the statute of limitations begin when the LAPD was successful in intimidating the Rasmussens to give up their pursuit of justice for Sherri.  "These plaintiff's did not know the true facts," Boyer argues.

Boyer also mentioned to the Justices, something to the effect of, what would the family have sued the LAPD for back in 2000? They didn't know why the LAPD was intimidating them until 2009.

Then a slender, petite woman, Blithe S. Block, the attorney for the City of Los Angeles, addressed the court.  Probably because the Justice's tentative ruling was in the city's favor, her argument was brief.  Boyer had a few more minutes for rebuttal argument.  And that was it.  We left the courtroom and regrouped back in the second floor cafeteria for drinks.  Boyer was hopeful that her arguments were heard.

The California Courts of Appeal has ninety days from the end of this month to publish their ruling.  However, I believe Holly states they can request more time.

It's still amazing to me that Nels and Loretta, who just celebrated their 59th wedding anniversary, have not missed a single court hearing involving Sherri's case.  After the hearing, I walked the Rasmussens to their car, for their long drive back to Tucson.

Once I obtain copies of all the arguments, I'll put them up on T&T.

Rasmussen appeal filing on California Courts of Appeal web site.

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Sherri Rasmussen Family Civil Suit

Several of T&T readers have asked me about the Rasmussen family civil suit against Stephanie Lazarus and the LAPD.

Here is what I know so far:

The original suit was filed in July 2010 by the law firm of Taylor & Ring and is two-fold.  Stephanie Lazarus is being sued for the wrongful death of Sherri Rasmussen and the LAPD is being sued for violation of Sherri Rasmussen's civil rights.  The LAPD made a filing, basically saying that they are immune from these types of claims.  The court granted the motion to strike the complaint against the LAPD on the immunity argument.  The Rasmussen family appealed that ruling in January 2011.

Later today, oral arguments will be heard in the California Courts of Appeal on the immunity ruling. Sherri's parents, Nels and Lorretta Rasmussen are expected to attend.  I will be attending the hearing and will have a full update on T&T tonight or tomorrow.  The last time I was in this stately courtroom was at Phil Spector's appeal for his second degree murder conviction.

If I am able to obtain the briefs for both sides without too much cost, I will post them on my SCRIBD account.

Los Angeles Magazine, Stephanie Lazarus Case: 'In Plain Sight' by Steven Mikulan

September 2012 issue of Los Angeles Magazine

UPDATED 5/13/19 Corrected old broken links to Mikulan's story. Sprocket
UPDATED 11/1/13
For those die hard fans that are still interested in Stephanie Lazarus, there is a new article out in Los Angeles Magazine's September 2012 issue, by my good friend Steven Mikulan.  The eight page article is now online.

Along with writing for Los Angeles Magazine, Steven is the editor of Frying Pan News, an online web site that describes itself as “a blog on the current economy” providing, “...original content on politics, business, labor, jobs, the environment, culture...”

I initially met Steven Mikulan back in December 2004, at the Robert Blake trial.  He was the first journalist that I got to know while attending a trial, and has always been most kind, supportive and encouraging of my trial coverage efforts.  Steven was instrumental in saving a space for me in the second row at Phil Spector’s first trial and it’s how I got to know the late writer Dominick Dunne.  The four of us, myself, Steven, Dominick and the Daily Journal's Ciaran McEvoy became a tight knit group during that long drawn-out trial. Ciaran, Steven and I have been friends ever since.

Steven wrote for the LA Weekly for 25 years, mostly covering the local theater scene.  It was later in his career there that he also covered the criminal beat and local politics for the weekly paper.  Steven has a style of putting words together like I’ve rarely seen another writer do so successfully.  For example, he labeled the Lazarus story “media crack.”  I know that Dominick loved reading Steven’s pieces that I printed out for him during the Spector trial.  I’ll never forget when one of Spector’s defense attorneys, Bradley Brunon came over and complimented Steven on the latest story he wrote and asking him about a German term he used in the piece, verfremdungseffekt. Steven’s striking wit is often insightful and at the same time, he has an ability to capture what's most important in a way that can pluck at your heart strings.

What I found refreshing about Steven’s reporting is, he attended some of the trial, did original research on the case and reveals information we haven’t heard about the LAPD’s secret preparations in the hours before Stephanie's arrest.  He also brings new information about Lazarus via interviews with her former partner, Detective Don Hrycyk in the Art Theft Detail Unit, as well as from Stephanie's younger brother, Steven Lazarus. In addition, Steven also scored key interviews with DDA Shannon Presby,  Sherri’s father Nels Rasmussen, and a friend of Lazarus’s who attended UCLA with her.

It’s my opinion that it’s difficult to tell the Lazarus story and do it justice in a magazine article, where others control how may words you get to write.  I thought the article was very good considering the limited amount of space Los Angeles Magazine gave Steven. I should note there are a few errors in the printed magazine version.  However, I believe Steven’s editor is in the process of making corrections to the online version.

I spoke to Steven about his article and he gave me this response:

“Reporting on a story this complex was difficult, because as a writer I know that what got published would become part of a public archive that will be consulted by people in the future. Such readers must always trust a writer to be accurate, they have little choice but to rely on his or her story to be historically true, and yet making sure every factual rivet of any story is secure is no easy task. Throughout this effort I knew that no matter how many times I played back an interview, read a transcript, studied a Thomas Guide, deciphered my trial notes or looked at weather reports from 26 years ago, some little thing could escape my attention." 

 (Note: To view the article online, click on the link in the bottom of the online excerpt that says "subscribe now" and from that page, click on the link to preview a digital copy of the magazine for free.  The article begins on page 152. Sprocket.)


LA Magazine - In Plain Sight

Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Curious Vanity Fair Article on Stephanie Lazarus, Part III

Editorial cartoon © 2012 by Thomas Broersma (thomasbroersma@yahoo.com). All rights reserved by the artist. Full disclosure: This drawing is satire, not investigative journalism. It is unknown if CA inmate # WE4479 is a Vanity Fair subscriber.

Complete Series on Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Article HERE.

Continued from Part II...

I am not a famous writer. I don't have an editor, a fact-checker, or an unlimited budget.

I'm just a semi-retired housewife with a blog. However, I attended every hearing in the Lazarus case since February 2011. Watching the trial and getting to know many of the people impacted by Sherri Rasmussen's murder was an extremely intense and heart wrenching experience. I have such respect for the Rasmussen family, the attorneys, and all the LAPD detectives who worked on this case.

Since I published Part I and Part 2 of my review of Mark Bowden's article on the Lazarus case in the current issue of Vanity Fair, several T&T readers have asked if Mark Bowden attended the trial. As far as I know, Bowden did not attend a single court hearing between Stephanie's arrest in June 2009 and her sentencing in May 2012.

Robbery-Homicide Division Detectives Gregory Stearns and Dan Jaramillo are the stars of Bowden's article.  As anyone who's watched the video knows, their interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus was masterful and truly one for the textbooks. Reading the article, I found it strange that Bowden repeatedly got inside Stephanie's head, but not Stearns or Jaramillo. Bowden does not quote either RHD detective, except off the video tape which Judge Perry released to the public in November 2010.

Given the curious absence of Stearns and Jaramillo's personal perspectives, I had to wonder: Did Bowden interview them about their experience that day? So I made a few calls.

I began with Detective Stearns. I can confirm that he was not interviewed for the Vanity Fair article.

I then decided to dig a little deeper, and can report to my readers that none of the following people were interviewed by Bowden:

• Robbery-Homicide Detective Dan Jaramillo.

• Detectives Rob Bub, James Nuttall, Marc Martinez or Pete Barba (the Van Nuys Homicide Unit that solved the case).

• Retired LAPD Detective Phil Morritt (who apparently checked out physical evidence in 1993).

• Anyone in the Rasmussen family: Nels, Loretta, or Sherri's sisters, Teresa and Connie.

• John Ruetten, Sherri Rasmussen's widower.

• Jayne Goldberg, Sherri's closest friend.  

• Deputy District Attorneys Shannon Presby or Paul Nunez.

• John Taylor, the Rasmussen family attorney.

• Stephanie Lazarus' defense attorney Mark Overland.

• Stephanie Lazarus.

Since Bowden didn’t attend the trial, and didn’t interview any of the principals above, it begs the question: What did Mark Bowden base his article on?  The article doesn't say, and this Vanity Fair reader would love to know.

....Continued in Part IV....

Stephanie Lazarus Sentenced, Part II

Judge Robert J. Perry, during the trial

© Thomas Broersma thomasbroersma@yahoo.com

Continued from Part I.....

UPDATED May 17th, 2012 1:20 PM
I've received by E-mail, the full text of John Ruetten's statement to the court. Many thanks to John Ruetten, and those who forwarded it to me. Here it is below. Sprocket.

Your Honor,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak during this hearing. There are no words that can describe the loss of Sherri and whole of this experience, so it makes no sense to talk very long. It suffices to say that the Rasmussen family, my family, and Stephanie’s family have been thrust into a bizarre world of disbelief, and indescribable sadness. Sherri 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 Sherri when she entered a room. To me, her physical presence was startling. I can clearly remember the first moment I laid eyes on her. I had just arrived at a party and she was standing in a covered patio area talking to several other people. She was 6 feet 1 inches tall in her high heels, wearing blue jeans, a white blouse, and dangly earrings. I was stunned, but somehow managed to approach her and avoid acting like a complete idiot. She said yes when I called later to ask for a date. When I arrived at Sherri’s house for that first date, she was waiting on the balcony so she could guide me toward her front door. I came to understand that this was just like Sherri. She knew how to make a person feel welcome and at ease. Sherri Rasmussen was a physical presence, and my heart still races when I look at pictures of her. But Sherri was extraordinary more for who she was than the way she looked. She was a hard worker, a consummate professional, a leader, a diplomat, forgiving, tough, and a kid at heart. I was constantly surprised by this amazing combination of traits. Like the rest of us, Sherri was not perfect, but she still deserved to live a long and full life.

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 Sherri must have felt in her last moments of life. I am sure that I am not alone when I say that I just can’t bare thinking about these moments. But Sherri’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 span a generation, creating pain for those whose lives should have never been touched by this tragic event. Again, words are feeble tools for describing these impacts, but there are so many moments and so very many tears. What I can say is that I have 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 Sherri, 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 Sherri. 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 Sherri’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 cope with this appalling fact. I have resigned myself to praying for some measure of peace, and trying to avoid the daydreams about a world where Sherri is still with us, and this pointless tragedy never occurred.

Your Honor, thank you again for this opportunity to speak.
~~~
UPDATED May 17th, 2012 for spelling, clarity.

May 11th, 2012 ~ Sentencing Day
As I was waiting in the hallway, just taking in the people who were here.... John Ruetten's friend David Neuman, a male friend with John's sister, Gail, the extended Rasmussen family, I realize that I better take some notes before I'm called to step in line and enter the courtroom.  I open my laptop and get a few quick notes written before those of us with media badges are told to line up against the wall for entry into Dept. 104.

From memory, I believe it's Jayne Goldberg's husband who approaches me first to tell me that Judge Perry will not let Jayne read a victim impact statement.  Only immediate family.  I tell him that I absolutely will publish her statement for her, so her voice can be heard.

When I walk inside Dept. 104,  I get a smile on my face when I see head-cowboy, Detective Rob Bub (sitting in one of the plastic chairs against the back wall near the door) and say hello to him.  I'm glad that someone from the Van Nuys Homicide Unit was able to attend the sentencing.

As the press enters, we fan out in the first row and take our favorite positions.  My friend Matthew McGough motions to me not to sit in my favorite spot, but to sit more towards the center of the aisle, and closer to where the podium is set up in the well.

Familiar faces from the press are Thomas Broersma, Steven Mikulan, the LA Times' Andrew Blankstein, Pat LaLama, Local ABC 7's Miriam Hernandez, and Terri Keith of City News to name a few.  The Associated Press reporter is someone I've never seen before. I saw the same Dateline camera crew that was on verdict watch with me back in March.  They would be the pool camera.
 
The media camera is set up at the end of the jury box closest to the gallery.  This is probably where either Judge Perry or the Superior Court's Public Information Office has told them where to place it.  It's my opinion it's the only location where they can aim their camera at Perry, then Lazarus and also at the podium and try not to film those sitting in the gallery.  I've never heard of a Judge in the downtown criminal court letting the media film the jury or members of the public.  They control where the media is allowed to set up their cameras.

In the well of the court, there is only one row of chairs set up against the low dividing wall next to the gallery.  In those seats are Assistant DA Pat Dixon (who oversees all special prosecution divisions), Robbery-Homicide Detective Greg Stearns (who I later learn came in to court on his day off...that's dedication), and DDA Rosa Alarcon (who worked on the case).  In the end chair farthest from me and near the aisle is District Attorney Steve Cooley.

Sherri's family is in the second row behind me along with their attorney, John Taylor.  Extended members of Sherri's family who could not attend the trial are here.  Her sister Teresa's husband, Brian, sister Connie, Connie's daughter Rachel (who we saw in the Christmas photos as an infant), Rachel's daughter Hannah (4 years-old and adorable; dressed in a pink and white dress with a pink ribbon in her hair), as well as John, Gail, Jayne Goldberg and Jayne's husband Michael. I believe her cousin Robin is in the back row.  Jayne gives me a copy of her statement and I tell her that I will be happy to post it for her.

On the defense side, I see Lazarus' mother, Carol.  In the front row are her brother Steven, Steven's female companion, and her sister Judi.  I see a few other familiar faces whose names and relationships I don't know.  At first, I don't see Scott Young, Lazarus' husband.  I ask Matthew if he's seen him.  Then it comes down the line, I think from Pat LaLama that Young is here, he's in the second row on the defense side near the door.  I look again and I still can't see him.  And then I realize he must be sitting way back in his chair, hidden from view by the person next to him on his left.

 As I turn around and make note of everyone here, I see that Ruetten is holding a typed paper in his hand and reading over it.  My prediction was he would give a victim impact statement.  I think John is the most misunderstood person in this tragedy.  Some have called Ruetten a cad for sleeping with Lazarus while engaged to Sherri.  My personal opinion is, he was truthful on the stand, when he testified he was young, he made a mistake and in over his head when it came to seeing Lazarus and agreeing to sleep with her that night.  I think the death of his wife completely devastated him.  I think it took him years to recover from discovering her murdered in their home.  What ever poor judgements he made back then, he's paid for it many times over.

8:35 AM
Steven Mikulan, Matthew and I chat about the first Spector trial, getting to know Dominick Dunne, the jury site visit, the LA Times reporter Peter Hong, and how Hong, at the time was trying to cultivate this "boys club" among the press covering the case.

People are still getting seated.  Looking back I see DDA James Garrison (who I originally reported looked like he just walked off a beach from surfing) who channeled the "ghost/spirit of Lloyd Mahaney" for the jurors.  There are two suited investigator/sheriff types sitting in the gallery along with the press.

8:40 AM
The court clerk, Melody Ramarez addresses the room.  "Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to start the sentencing."  Judge Perry enters the courtroom.  He's wearing a bright red tie with his robes and white shirt.  The door to the holding cell area opens and Lazarus walks out in an orange jumpsuit.  (I didn't think Judge Perry would let her wear civilian clothes like Judge Fidler did for Phil Spector at his sentencing.  Spector got to wear his long coat-tails and his page-boy wig. Sprocket)  Because of where the deputies surrounding her are standing I am not able to see her give any glances to her family, although I've read in a few press reports that she did.  Her hair is not in a ponytail and it does not appear to have been combed.

Judge Perry calls the case to order.  Lazarus chats with Courtney Overland to her right.  She keeps her head down and away from the cameras.  Judge Perry informs counsel he has read a defense motion to correct the probation report. He's provided a corrected report to counsel.

Judge Perry inquires with Overland if there is anything else from the defense and can they proceed with sentencing.

JP: The law allows for certain person(s) to address the court.... (snip) ...allows victim impact statements.  (The law?) allows them to express their views.  (snip) I require .... statements be made to me and not the defendant.

DDA Presby stands and calls for Loretta Rasmussen, Sherri's mother.

Loretta Rasmussen © Thomas Broersma

"Thank you your Honor.  Because of a selfish brutal-act of violence Sherri's family, extended family and friends have endured extreme heart ache and pain.  A pain for which there is no cure.  Everyday we miss her laughter and love.  Our hearts and prayers go out to Stephanie's family and especially to her mother."

Loretta quickly sits back down and Teresa Lane, Sherri's younger sister is called.  My eyes are already starting to tear up and I don't have a tissue, a paper napkin, anything.

Teresa Lane © Thomas Broersma

"November 23, 1985 was one of the happiest days of my sister's life, her wedding day.  It was also my fifth wedding anniversary.  Jokingly, I told Sherri it was a good thing she was getting married that day because I could barely fit into my dress, due to the fact I was three months pregnant.  I felt so privileged that Sherri and I would be sharing the same anniversary for the rest of our lives.  Little did I know three short months later while dealing with my grief and trying to stay calm to not jeopardize my pregnancy, I would be writing this letter to Sherri for her memorial.

Sherri,
I know that you are gone, there are no words to express the pain, but your spirit is still with me.  You have left me with the challenge to keep your spirit alive.  By meeting this challenge I am giving in return the gift of knowing you, to others, which enables me to never lose the Sherri I love.  As always you'll be there to lend a listening ear, share my joys and dream my dreams.  This is not too much to ask for all that you have given.
I Love You

Even after writing this letter so long ago I have learned over the years before and during the trial that Sherri still inspires. The prosecuting attorneys, detectives, neighbors, co-workers and the press have been affected by what a great person Sherri was, even though some did not know her personally.  Both of my sons know Sherri to be a great and loving person, but I wish they would have had the chance to know her personally.  What a gift that would have been.  After the trial I have learned about more and more people my sister affected, past and present, and how they were inspired by what a kind and loving person she was.  Can you imagine what she would have done if she was still with us?

My husband has told me over the years that I would never be able to understand why someone would take my sister's life and he was right.  I do not understand how someone could be so callous and have such a lack of respect for life.  What a waste it was to take Sherri's life because she still lives on in all of us.

Lastly I wanted to thank everyone involved on the prosecution team, Shannon, Paul, Daniel and Greg for what they have done for me, my family and Sherri.  I want to give a special thanks to Jim Nuttall and his team and the DNA specialist for their unwavering work to bring justice to this case."

Next is Connie Rasmussen, Sherri's older sister.

Connie Rasmussen © Thomas Broersma

"Your Honor, thank you for this opportunity to address the court regarding the impact of losing Sherri.

First I would like to thank Presby and Nunez for portraying Sherri as the vibrant, caring person she was!  She is not the contracted victim on the floor.

Sherri was my best friend; we shared problems and secrets, joys and sorrows.  She was always there....ready to listen, willing to help, telling you just what you needed to hear.

She was full of warmth, love and caring.  She became a Registered Nurse at the age of nineteen.  As I reflect back I see her working the 12-8 shift, her long hair pulled back in a ponytail working the Surgical Intensive Care Unit.  We often met on our breaks to share our work experiences.  She at only nineteen, yet balanced life and death decisions with ease.

Her sense of humor I always admired. She brought happiness, harmony and peace to all those that she came in contact.

She had a special intellectual gift, which she tried to keep a secret, but all that worked with her or knew her, knew she had a special gift, which she choose to use to help others.  During our senior year at Loma Linda University she was asked to join Sigma Theta Tau Nursing Professional Honor Society.  Because I was not asked as well, she refused to join.  We both were inducted after finishing our graduate studies.  She always considered others before herself.

We were taught that we should stand up for ourselves and be independent but always knew that our family and the Lord were by our sides for support at all times.

Throughout the closing statements I felt Sherri was present in this courtroom standing up for herself.  (In) Sherri's effort to survive, she captured the scientific evidence needed to identify her murderer.  It is fitting that science was the key in the prosecution.  I can hear Sherri saying with gusto "YES!" because scientific advances had made it possible to bring justice in this case.  How fitting that science the field of study Sherri loved, has brought her closure.

Sherri was my sister, colleague and best friend all in one which is rare.  I was lucky to have Sherri as my sister, best friend and colleague because she always brought out the best in me.  Not a day goes by that she is not sorely missed.  I look forward to the day when I can once again, put my arms around her and catch her up on the life events that she has missed.  What a joyous reunion that is going to be."

Sherri's widower, John Ruetten is called.

John Ruetten, Sherri's husband © Thomas Broersma

"Thank you for the opportunity to speak. There are no words to describe the loss of Sherri.  (snip) Suffice to say the loss of the Rasmussen family, my family and Stephanie's family, have been thrust into a bizarre world of disbelief ... (snip)... (and? indescibable?) sadness.  Sherri Rasmussen had a profound impact on so many people.  (Ruetten starts to cry and it makes me cry. I try to control myself but I cannot. His grief has a profound effect on me. Sprocket) I was proud that she (snip) ... be my wife.  (snip) I can clearly remember the first moment I laid eyes on her. (snip) It was at a party... (Ruetten describes what she was wearing, and that she was six feet, one inches tall in her high heels...) I was stunned."

Ruetten recalls their first date, how he remembers her waiting on the balcony, so she could guide him to the front door.  Ruetten's voice cracks again. It's heartbreaking.  "Sherri knew how to make someone feel at ease."  Ruetten states he's asked to relay a story, about how his father had the opportunity to dance with Sherri at a friend's wedding.  Ruetten's voice is barely keeping it together.  He rubs his nose several times during his statement.  His father was smitten and said something to the effect that Sherri really has got it together.

"Sherri Rasmussen was a physical presence in my life and my heart still races when I look at (photos of?) her. (snip) Ruetten talks about her character.  "I was constantly surprised by this amazing combination of traits."  (snip) "For those of us in this trial ... (snip) ... we can ...(snip) ...to imagine the terror and disbelief Sherri must have felt.. (snip) .. last moments of life.  (snip) We know what Sherri was ...(snip) to do... (snip) She was trying to get away. (snip) All she wanted was to be in her own loving relationship ... (snip) with her own loving family and with me. (snip) Her death (snip) the trial (snip) had had a profound impact on many others.  (snip) But there are so many moments and so many tears. (snip) I will spend many hours praying for everyone... (snip)

Your Honor, I'm compelled to end with my feelings towards the Rasmussen family. (She) ...played the central role; she played ...(snip) family. Nels and Loretta Rasmussen lost much more than a daughter... (snip) ...lost Sherri. Only they fully appreciate... (snip) Despite my own tremendous grief, I must still apologize for my ability to coexist with the pain they were enduring.  I just did not have the strength. (snip) ...contemplating their profound grief and the fact that Sherri's death occurred because she met and married me brings me to my knees.  I do not know, and fear I will ever (never?) know, how to cope with this appalling fact. (snip)   ...daydreams where Sherri is still with us... (snip) pointless tragedy never occurs."

Ruetten's voice breaks in his last words to the court.

JP: Thank you Mr. Ruetten.

DDA Presby informs the court that Nels Rasmussen has asked him to read a statement.

SP: How can one (?) the grief and agony of (loss?) a child. (snip) ... by such a brutal and selfish act of violence.  Sherri was a (snip) gifted, loving, daughter. (snip) The pain cause to (snip) will never heal.
(snip) Sherri will forever be missed by her (?), family (snip) and society as a whole.

Presby talks about her nursing goals.

SP: We can only guess what great good she might have done (snip) life (snip) had not been so callously taken from her. (snip)

I was not surprised that Lazarus did not speak. I expected that. I am surprised that no one from Lazarus' family spoke, but it may be that Judge Perry did not allow statements from her family. I don't know.  (I do know that at the sentencing for Tyquan Knox last November 2011, the defendant's mother addressed Judge Pastor. Sprocket)

I think it's a testament to the Rasmussen family and John Ruetten as well as to the character of these individuals. I'm impressed and amazed that they did not take this opportunity to direct any negative, derogatory words about Lazarus, or express anger or outrage to her specifically. Judge Perry asks Overland if there is any legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced.

JP The sentence (snip) is set by law. I will now pronounce sentence.

I couldn't keep myself from crying during the impact statements.  My nose is completely stuffed up.  I still have a long way to go to stay emotionally detached during victim impact statements.  Years ago Dominick Dunne told me he had the same difficulty; he often ended up identifying with the victim's family.

On count one, first degree murder sentenced to state penitentiary for a term of 25 years to life.  For the special allegation of a firearm ... an additional two years. The total sentence is 27 years to life.  Defendant arrested on June 5th, 2009. Court has calculated that she has been in custody 1,072 days. She is entitled to good time credits of 536 days; total credits is 1,608.  She is to pay a restitution fine of $100.00.  She has the right to appeal.

Presby states there is nothing more from the people.  The defense gives notice that they are filing an appeal.

JP: This concludes the matter.

Its' about 9:05 AM.

The sentencing took less than 20 minutes, and then it was over.  Many people in the gallery, including myself appear lost as we slowly make our way out into the hallway.   Matthew wants to make sure he checks in with several people before we make our way to the DA's press conference up on the 18th floor of the Criminal Court Building.

At the press conference, DA Steve Cooley spoke, DDA Presby spoke and DDA Nunez spoke. They fielded a few disappointing questions from the press, mainly from people who did not attend the trial or only attended it sporadically and were not aware of the facts of the case.  After that press conference, the Rasmussen family attorney, John Taylor holds a presser in the Temple Street plaza in front of the building.  Matthew and I were late to that but did arrive in time to hear John Taylor tell the media that the LAPD should be concerned, and should have questions about three areas in time. The initial 1986 investigation, the early 90's when evidence went missing, and in 2005 when the DNA came back as a female perpetrator.

I believe it was on the plaza when I spoke to Teresa and Jayne about why Sherri didn't tell her husband about the suspected stalking, or her problems with Lazarus.  They both said that Sherri was an independent person.  She would have wanted to solve her own problems.  Sherri would not have wanted her family to "think less of John" which is why she probably did not tell her close friend and family about all of this, or about John sleeping with Lazarus.  I believe Jayne told me that Sherri was going to give herself a few weeks to deal with Lazarus on her own, and if she couldn't then she might have asked for help.  It was just who she was; her confidence in her ability to handle this herself.

Matthew and I made our way back into the building where DDA Nunez agreed to give Matthew a few moments of his time to answer some questions and I got to tag along. We ended up getting invited to lunch...but lunch and that ensuing discussion was off the record.

Before I left the court building, Teresa and Connie were kind enough to give me copies of their victim impact statements as well as Loretta's.  For a long time I contemplated approaching John Ruetten, to ask him if I could get a copy of his impact statement but I never drew up the courage. As promised, below is Jayne Goldberg's victim impact statement, which she gave me.

My name is Jayne Goldberg and I want to thank you for this opportunity to address the court and to talk about Sherri, to speak for all of those friends and colleagues who knew her and loved her… who love her still.

At various times Sherri was my coworker, my boss, my roommate and always my friend. As a compassionate bedside caregiver and a competent and benevolent manager she was well respected by her nursing colleagues. To this day, all of the care I give as a nurse has to pass the Sherri test. Is my care competent? Is it compassionate? As a friend she was generous with her time, fun to be with and so easy to know. To paraphrase Roy Croft, I loved her “Not only for what she was, 
But for what I was when I was with her”. Sherri was special in so many ways. I wish all of you could have had the opportunity to know her.

Most of all, Sherri was a gentle person who would never, could never have hurt anyone the way she was hurt on that terrible day.

Back in 1982, I took a self defense class at school and Sherri and I would discuss what I was learning. One day she asked me to ask the instructor what to do in a situation where you are confronted by someone with a gun. The instructor said you should either talk your way out or try to get away. I know that’s what Sherri was trying to do. She was trying to get away. She wasn’t trying to hurt anyone. She was just trying to save her own life. A life she had worked for, had dreamed of, a life she had a right to, a life that was stolen from her. She was very accomplished for her age but all she really wanted was to be of service to others and to be in a loving relationship like her own loving family. She had found that loving relationship with John.

The last time I saw Sherri was Sunday February 16th. I had just become engaged on Valentine’s Day and had gone out to Sherri’s to show her my ring. She had been saving her Bridal magazines for me as we both waited anxiously for Michael to pop the question. I remember we were standing facing each other in the living room. When she handed them to me she said, “Jayne, enjoy this time …my wedding day was the happiest day of my life”. The truth is I might not have even started dating my husband if not for Sherri. She was the one who insisted in June of ’84 that I go to the party where that cute Pharmacist was going to be. She had already met John and was incredibly happy with the promise of their new relationship. But it wasn’t enough that she was happy. Sherri was the kind of person who wanted her friends to be as happy as she was.

Before Sherri was murdered, I thought I knew what grief was. As a critical care nurse I had often helped families deal with grief. I will never forget the moment I heard about Sherri’s murder. Until then I hadn’t really appreciated how gut wrenching grief can be. Words can’t describe the shock and pain I felt, how distraught I became as the world suddenly turned upside down. On some level that shock and disbelief never goes away. For weeks afterward it took all the courage I had just to stand upright. I didn’t understand how the rest of the world could go on as if nothing had happened. I wanted to grab people on the street and say. “Don’t you understand? My friend is dead.”

I did eventually go shopping for a wedding dress because, as Loretta said, Sherri would have wanted me to, but I went dressed in black and with tears streaming down my face. Finally one curious consultant asked me if I wanted to get married. When I looked at my wedding photos I saw a blank space where Sherri should have been. To this day I start to weep, even in the grocery store, if I hear a song from the 80’s that reminds me of Sherri. I can’t go to a wedding or a funeral without sobbing uncontrollably. It always comes back to me that one minute we were all so happy at Sherri’s wedding and then just 3 months later all the same people were there, grief stricken at Sherri’s funeral. The sadness will stay with me forever, like a stone in my heart. I will never get over this. There will never be closure.

I never saw Sherri again. We were advised not to see her in the casket, not to have that as our last memory of her. I’ve always regretted not seeing her one last time. Not having a chance to talk to her, to tell her how much she meant to me, what a good and loyal friend she had been, to tell her “I love you”. As a matter of fact until I saw Sherri’s morgue photo during the preliminary hearing I truly believed she was in a witness protection program. Surely she couldn’t be dead. Not Sherri! And then she died again when the cold case was opened, and again at the preliminary hearing and again at the trial and again today…

Anne Marie McDonald, a Canadian writer, says this about grief: “Grief is a fulcrum …The joint in time between the vanishing of hope and the beginning of loss. The missing link…Allows the living to move forward and the dead finally to return, smile, and open their arms to us in memory”. After 26 years of grief, hopefully this verdict, this tiny measure of justice for Sherri will be that missing link that will allow us, the living, to move forward and Sherri finally to return, smile and open her arms to us in memory.

I love you, Sherri. I’ll see you in my dreams.

I know many of you have asked about "when" Lazarus will be eligible for parole.  From several LE sources, I've been told somewhere between 14 and 15 years.  Although she will be eligible, that doesn't mean she will be granted parole on her first appearance in front of the parole board.  That's pretty much an "unheard of" situation. It's my guess that she will probably serve her complete sentence before the board will consider a release.  It's my opinion that Laarus would have to admit to the murder and express remorse before ever being granted parole.  Matthew found out that the Rasmussen's had their impact statements video recorded for any and all future parole hearings that might happen when they are no longer alive.

As soon as Matthew can get the copy of the courtroom video he received from the NBC camera guy converted to a viewable format, I'll have the complete video of the sentencing up on the web.  Also coming will be an audio recording of the DA's press conference and possibly an audio recording of John Taylor's presser.  Sprocket


PROSECUTION'S SENTENCING GUIDELINES


PROSECUTION'S STATEMENT OF VIEWS

Stephanie Lazarus Sentenced Today

Defense attorney Mark Overland, Stephanie Lazarus,

March 8th, 2012 at the reading of the verdict

UPDATE 2:45 PM
I just got home and I'm exhausted. The heat in the Valley is a bruiser today.  As soon as I rest up (and get my kitchen cleaned up from this morning) I will put up my notes.  I could not see Stephanie's face from where I was sitting.  She kept her head down and turned slightly to her right, away from the media video camera that was set up in the jury box.  According to the District Attorney's press release, she showed no emotion during the sentencing.  She was in an orange jail jumpsuit, not civilian clothing.  She did not have her hair back in a ponytail; it did not look like it had been brushed.

Lazarus' husband Scott Young was in the gallery along with several other of her family members.  The last sentencing hearing I attended (Tyquan Knox case) the defendant's mother addressed the court.  I thought for sure that someone from Lazarus' family would address the court but they did not.  It could be because Judge Perry did not allow it.  Judge Perry did not allow Sherri's former roommate, Jayne Goldberg to read a statement since she was not a direct family member.  I will have her statement up on T&T when I write my update.  Sherri's mother Loretta spoke first, then her sister Teresa then her sister Connie.  John Ruetten's voice broke into sobs many times during the reading of his statement.  DDA Shannon Presby was asked to read a statement for Nels Rasmussen.  In less than 30 minutes, it was all over.  Judge Perry did not add any statements or comments to reading the sentence into the record and the calculation of her credits so far for time served.  I will have much more about the sentence, when she will first be eligible for parole, etc., either later tonight or tomorrow morning.  I'm going along with fellow contributor CaliGirl9's insightful guess that Lazarus will be sent to the same facility as the Manson girls.  Sprocket.


UPDATE 8:15 AM
I'm in the hallway.  John Ruetten, his sister Gail Lopes nad possibly her husband are here.  There are many more members of Sherri Rasmussen's family here.  I got to meet Sherri's cousin, who could not attend the trial.  I believe it's going to be video taped today, but I don't believe it will be live streamed. I haven't checked with the PIO yet.  I was just catching up with Steven Mikulan.  Now I have to get in line.

5:00 AM
At 8:30 AM PT today, in Dept. 104 of the downtown Criminal Justice Center (CJC) former LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus, 52, will be sentenced by Judge Robert J. Perry for the February 1986 first degree murder of Sherri Rae Rasmussen, a Glendale Adventist critical care nurse and the new bride of her ex-lover, John Ruetten.

For those of you living in a cave, Rasmussen was badly beaten (her face disfigured), bitten on the forearm and shot three times in the chest in her Van Nuys town home, sometime in the morning hours of February 24th, 1986.  Her body was discovered around 6 PM that same day when her husband, Ruetten, came home from work.  The cold case was solved in 2009 by the Van Nuys Homicide Unit (Detective Rob Bub, unit supervisor, Detective James Nuttall, Detective Pete Barba, and Detective Marc Martinez, a fabulous group of cowboys. Sprocket) when Detective Nuttall picked up the cardboard box containing the four murder-book binders that had been waiting patiently on his desk for many months, opened the case file and started looking at the crime scene photos with fresh eyes.

It is my understanding there is very little leeway Judge Perry has in sentencing since the punishment for murder is included in the California Penal Code 187.  Lazarus will be sentenced under the Penal Code that was in effect when the murder was committed back in 1986.  She is expected to be sentenced to 27 years to life; 25 years for the murder and 2 years for the gun charge.  If Lazarus had committed the murder in more recent times, she would be facing twice as much time in prison.  (Read the sentence of Tomiekiea Johnson, recently convicted of first degree murder with a gun. Johnson collapsed when her sentence was read in court.)

The Superior Court's Public Information Office (PIO) has informed the media that there will be "additional seating limitations" for the sentencing.  It's a good bet there will be a reduced number of seats awarded by lottery for the general public.  Although I have a guaranteed seat for the sentencing, I have to be on the 9th Floor very early to claim it.  I'll be taking the Red Line Train not long after the sun rises.

There is a strong possibility that there will be video of the sentencing since Judge Perry has approved video cameras for the reading of the verdict, but I wouldn't count on there being live streaming of the sentencing anywhere on the web (mostly because of the difficulties I know news media has had in the past of trying to arrange live streaming in the CJC).  I will post an update about cameras as soon as I'm on the 9th Floor and am able to ask the PIO staff.

The sentence won't be a mystery.  The big mystery is if Lazarus will speak at her sentencing.  I'm not the best predictor of these things but it's my guess that we will not hear from Lazarus herself.  It's my opinion that she has more to lose (via appeals) if she speaks to the court at this time.  The other mystery is whether or not John Ruetten will speak about the impact Sherri's death had on him and his family.  My opinion is that he will, but we'll see.  To me, it's a foregone conclusion that members of the Rasmussen family will speak and I believe this will be a difficult time for all of Sherri's loved ones. I will also be interested to see who from Lazarus' family attends the sentencing and if any of them put a statement to the Court on the record.

Since Judge Perry is very strict about electronic devices inside his courtroom, I will not be publishing an update until after the hearing is completely over, most likely in the late afternoon.

 Continued in Part II....

Sherri Rae Rasmussen