# Talk:Murder of Sherri Rasmussen

"Initial investigation" section has "It appeared that the perpetrator had been in the process of taking electronic equipment when Rasmussen came upon them".  Maybe say "when encountered by Rasmussen"?  Remember that a woman (and that would be Stephanie Lazarus, police woman) would be convicted of murder in this case. Carlm0404 (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

At the time of that investigation, the killer's gender was not known, much less their identity, and it was indeed seen as entirely possible that more than one person were involved. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
So, could we use "perpetrator(s)" to allow for more than one?  We could still use "when encountered by Rasmussen". Carlm0404 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I am curious ... does anyone know why she is known by the name of Sherri Rasmussen ... and not Sherri Ruetten?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

All the coverage used it. She might have chosen to continue going by her maiden name while she was alive. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.  Yes, I agree ... all the coverage indeed used it.  I guess you are correct ... even after marriage, she went by her maiden name, it seems.  Thanks.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed this w/r to the late 1990s: "Among the evidence seen as likely to do so was that collected from the Rasmussens' residence".  Why the plural of "Rasmussen"?  If we are referring to the home of Sherri Rasmussen and her husband, and Sherri was using maiden name, only one Rasmussen would have been living there. Carlm0404 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point.  I did not notice that.  I will reword it.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I just changed it from ... the Rasmussens' residence ... to ... the Rasmussen residence.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A large part of this article is sourced to someone's lawsuit pleadings and a court opinion, neither of which is a reliable source (other than for their own content, and even then with great caution and very sparingly). This in turn is why it's so long and overdetailed: if it limited itself to details secondary sources found worth reporting, it would be more focused and readable. EEng 15:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As it happens ... there is now a book about the case, The Lazarus Files, which I am in the process of reading (it's long, too) and I will probably swap it in as a source when I'm done.I had planned, before I learned that a book had been written about the case, on nominating it for FA last year in the hope of having it on the main page on the 35th anniversary of the crime earlier this year; since the pandemic also played a part in putting those plans on hold I am now shooting more for the 40th anniversary, so there's plenty of time to get it ready.One problem this article has now, though, is that there's the informal requirement for FA that an article have at least one free image, and I thought until very recently that I had one, even if rather tangentially related to the text. Because there's nothing in it that would justify using any non-free images, and I haven't found any other free ones we could use to break up the wall o' text that the article has become (Or, I suppose, I could find a lot of external non-free images, and use {{external media}} to create those little boxes and break up the text flow better to make it easier on readers' eyes).Would you be willing to search through the 25M+ images on Commons for one that might be on point? I have some other things to preoccupy me lately, or I'd do it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid it was I who removed the image of the police building. I'm sorry, but these "establishing shots" (like on a TV show, to show you to where the action's now shifted) tell the reader nothing. "Oh, look, a blocky nondescript office building with a car parked front. Interesting!" If FA requires a free image, then put that one back I guess. (Maybe the book will have an usable image. Lazarus with her creepy bug-eyes would be ideal.)This is another excellent example of the stupidity of the FA rules and process: induces you to put in a meaningless image because, well, you have to have an image, doesn't matter how silly it is. Seriously, I suggest you skip FA and take personal pride in a job well done. EEng 00:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I just reviewed the FAC and didn't see that explicitly noted, just that all articles nominated must, where they use images, follow the image use policy.I think that was a temporary thing, back around the time we began narrowing the use of fair-use images to what it is now, mainspace only with a justification. There were some FAs back then, about copyrighted narrative visual works like films and TV shows, that were just littered with screenshots and nary a free image in sight, and I think (understandably) the intent was to discourage that. We aren't having that problem now.Yes I am proud of this article, and thank you for the praise. I do feel that if Murder of Leigh Leigh, slightly shorter, can have been a Main Page FA and remain one, this can too. But I'd still love to have pictures. Ideally the best one that could be done as a free image would be the Rasmussens' condo, which I think still exists. The problem with taking a picture isn't, for me, so much that it's in a gated community (I think it's next to the fence) as much as that it's 3,000 miles away from me. I don't know anybody here in LA who's that committed to taking pictures that I can ask.And apart from that, things like any police or personal photos are still copyrighted.I mean, I see your point about the rather establishing shot nature of the photo of Parker Center, and I won't put it back in for now, but I still would like to have something to break up the text a little bit, per the advice of former Australian newspaper editor Colin Wheildon in one of the best books I have ever read on the subject of layout (well, maybe the only one but after finishing it you don't think you need to read any more), Type & Layout: Are You Communicating Or Just Making Pretty Shapes Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, while the article's very comprehensive, I think it would be better if it were slimmed down, partly by cutting overdetail and partly  y making the writing just plain more concise. EEng 22:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
That will probably happen, since before I make any bid for an article's recognition, I print it out, go through it with a red pen, and copyedit that way. So I'll be doing that, probably after I get finished with the book. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Remember the man taking his bird for a walk? EEng 05:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, I must confess, I'm missing the import of this one. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Some article about a murder (or something) in China, and in it it said that "a man taking his bird out for a walk" reported seeing the victim outside Place P at Time T. I think you and I argued about whether the detail that the witness was taking his bird for a walk (charming image though that is) was worth including. EEng 06:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 OK ... I think that was Murder of Pamela Werner. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it normal for appellate decisions to be rendered in this much detail? I think this is the first time I've seen such a detailed summary, especially when the primary holding is so commonplace. Delukiel (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's normal only in the sense that most people who write articles about true crime cases that have reached the appellate stage usually don't feel like and/or lack the knowledge to write at that level of detail. There's no policy as far as I know delimiting how much we say or don't say in this area.
When I wrote the article I chose to go into this level of detail because a) the appellate court goes into some greater detail about how the case was tried than contemporary newspaper coverage does and b) given that California requires that all murder convictions be appealed (at public expense if necessary), the extent to which the appeals court went into what seems like all or most of the issues raised was sort of worthy of note. Maybe it's because, living in New York where we don't have that rule, but the state constitution's provision that almost all appeals are a matter of right means the Appellate Division is very busy, so much that (at least in civil cases) it often issues decisions dealing with the issue raised in just a paragraph or two that cites maybe the one necessary precedent, doesn't really explain how that's relevant (although often when you look at the precedent, it's such a slam dunk that you wonder how the attorneys for the losing party even justified charging the client to do it) and then ends with something like "As for the other issues raised, they are without merit."
I don't know how typical this decision is in this regard for appealed murder convictions in California. I do, however, feel that more than a single sentence to the effect of "Her conviction was upheld on appeal", as some other editors might write, is warranted. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Make sense, thank you @Daniel Case!
Interesting that California requires all murder convictions to be appealed, most I've heard it's only death penalty gets an automatic appeal. That's unique. No requirement for a Notice of Appeal there? Delukiel (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


### Murder of Sherri Rasmussen
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because, as part of preparing it for FAC with the goal of a Main Page appearance on the 40th anniversary of the crime early next year, I have substantially revised the article with material from a 2019 book about the case, and I cannot say it is similar to the version that was reviewed previously nor the GA version. 
Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

One problem I see here is this article cites legal cases quite a lot, and as Lazarus is still alive, we cannot do that per WP:BLPPRIMARY. If it is for information unrelated to living people that is fine, but we are using it for information about her as a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
The information in question is not so much about her as a person, it is about her legal cases. I have supplemented the one cite for her not having reported the gun missing to the department, the one instance I could find where your argument about BLP being implicated seems valid, which had cited the appellate case, with a cite to McGough's book.
Other than that, the article does not use the appellate record to support any assertions about Lazarus that are independent of her being tried for and convicted of murder and otherwise unsupported by evidence (i.e., her Internet searches on Ruetten's name in the past were the result of a forensic examination of her computer, and uncontested by her); in fact most of it relates to procedural issues in the case which are broad legal issues that exist independently of BLP. I would further note that appellate cases really aren't primary sources by our definition (or even by the language of BLPPRIMARY), since very rarely do they make new findings of fact; they are concerned primarily with the legal ramifications of facts legally established or introduced as evidence at trial, with those findings having real-world consequences. This is more in accordance with secondary sources by our definition. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY says "do not use trial transcripts and other court records" about BLPs - the appellate record is of course a court record. Her legal cases are of course covered by that. I have always thought this rule was overly strict, but that is it as written. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
If it meant for us to not use any court documents, it would have said so explicitly. By saying "trial transcripts and other court records" it means to disfavor testimonial court records such as affidavits and depositions. It was written at a time (one I remember) when people were using that sort of document, regardless of whether it was actually submitted as evidence, or whether a case had even been filed, on the idea that since it was sworn under oath/penalty of perjury, that made it good for negative BLP assertions about a third party.
AFAIK there are plenty of BLPs, some of them FAs even, where we've used higher-level court decisions as sources without complaint.
As this is the second time in a couple of months that I've had this argument with someone, clearly I will have to initiate a discussion on WT:BLP to the effect of clarifying and updating that language. There have been a couple of discussions that have indicated increasing openness to using appellate decisions as BLP sources, particularly on procedural matters that do not touch on BLP.
Meantime I will see what other sources I can scrounge that discuss the appellate case in detail. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I have mostly seen it be you cannot use any any legal document, that was my understanding. I would support a change, I have always viewed this as unnecessarily strict, so please ping me if you do.
Otherwise the article looks fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
It occurred to me that what might be the best option (as I do not think we should ask people as part of preparing articles for FA nominations to initiate discussions of policy amendments) would be to move most of the discussion of the appeal and the issues it considers to a separate article, People v. Lazarus, since it has been cited as a precedent in some other cases since then. The legal issues would be the point of the spinoff article, and it would certainly help shorten the article some more.
Maybe this could be the standard recommendation in this instance ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)


#### Query
@Daniel Case: It has been over a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and nominated to WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I will be doing that later in the year, as this review brought to light some changes I'm going to have to make before that. I thought I had closed this, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Nope, its still open. Instructions on how to close are located at WP:PRG. I recommend the script. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Just want to say I randomly stumbled across this article and absolutely agree this should be nominated for FA. That's why I came to the talk page! Very informative and the section about the case re-opening and precautions taken for investigating a fellow officer was actually thrilling. Nice work! PositivelyUncertain (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)