reporter: in february of 2012, nearly 26 years to the days since sherri rasmussen murder, stephanie lazarus would have her day in court. a chance to clear her name and reputation and to show that dna isn t always right and that the los angeles police department had it all work. coming up, about the lapd have it wrong? john was and stephanie went to tell sherri, look, you guys are getting married, i m telling him not to call me. we, the jury, in the above entitled action, find the defendant stephanie irene lazarus when dateline continues! ws and especially med d savers. select a medicare part d plan
interview of him was sufficient and that further dna testing would prove that. i can remember saying, well, his dna isn t there, there s no case. in fact, despite the long interrogation, dna would eventually link the murder of the depalmas not to alex but to a troubled ex-marine named robert jardin, a stereo, vacuum cleaner and set of keys stolen from the couple would also be found in jardin s possession. he did say when asked that bostick was not involved in the murder. this is reinforced by phone records that show alex in tampa about 35 miles from the depalma home at the time of the crime.
they were of the belief that the interview of him was sufficient and that further dna testing would prove that. i can remember saying, well, his dna isn t there, then there s no case there. in fact, despite the long interrogation, dna would eventually link the murder of the depalmas not to alex but to a troubled ex-marine named robert jardin, a stereo, vacuum cleaner and set of keys stolen from the couple would also be found in jardin s possession. he did say when asked that bostick was not involved in the murder. this is reinforced by phone records that show alex in tampa about 35 miles from the depalma home at the time of the crime.
the crime scene that the wind what happened? what s going on with the wind? what he s alleging is the wind carried the suspect s dna from the beer can to the condom. okay. the problem is they probably typed it and found out whether it s saliva or another bodily fluid. you re going to get blown out of the water with that if the dna analyst was able to determine what type of bodily fluid it was. secondarily, the other problem the defense faces is that some of the co-defendants are going to testify and say, yes, they did participate in the rape. this young man was part of the rape. the whole transferring the dna isn t going to carry weight when co-defendants say, yeah, he was there and did it. furthermore, those co-defendants testifying got 25 years apiece. it s not like they got a sweetheart deal to turn on the guy. let s stick with the wind thing. this is the most unusual thing most of us have heard when it comes to a trial for a rape case. possible, but
no, no you need to focus on evidence to convict. and they didn t. it is what it is. you don t know that they didn t. they didn t come back with the verdict that you wanted. the defense was successful at least arguing planting the seed, that the dna could have been there because it was wiped away on a a towel. they were able to bring in the seeds of doubt to plant with this jury. look, the dna, you can t, i mean, i guess you can try. i guess this case stands for the proposition that dna isn t enough but this isn t ncis or csi. this is real law, real courtrooms. this is a real case. this is the kind of evidence that you get and, the fact is, that he gave some story to the jury that the victim may have brought a dish home from a party that the accused was at. and i thought it was, personally i thought it was way out there but what the heck. i was flat wrong on this one. uma: esther, you have the final word here. the jury did what juries do. this is why fred and i don t sit on ju