evidence, and intentional dereliction of duties. beyond just being sloppy, or the fact they didn't close the case and they didn't listen to the family, those two things are not evidence of a cover-up. >> it wasn't that they didn't close the case. they didn't do anything to create a case. >> he says that in 1986, the detectives were protecting stephanie lazarus. >> they actively covered up the identity of the person who committed this crime. >> the rasmussen's lawsuit alleging a cover-up was dismissed in 2011. charlie beck was then the lapd chief and he spoke with us about the case. >> i can accept somebody that is unable to solve a crime that is solvable. i cannot accept somebody that covers up a crime or covers up an individual involved in a crime and i have no -- absolutely no indication that is what happened here. >> there is intoing to suggest they deliberately looked away from stephanie or not a road they didn't want to go down? >> i think it was a lack of ability, not an act to exclude stephanie.