Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The Ordeal of Michael Rasmussen, Part IV: "The Lady or the Tiger?"

The charges against Michael Rasmussen exist for one reason, and one reason only: His oldest daughter, Apryl, was furious that he married a woman who had children, and he was giving attention to them instead of her. That is correct; this is a case that has its roots in pure jealousy and revenge.

Apryl came from a previous marriage, and over the years, as friends have told us, she and her mother pretty much got what they wanted from Michael. After the divorce, Apryl lived with her father, who adored her. As Michael's wife, Becky, has told me, he had pictures of her all over the house.

Michael and Becky lived with each other for several years before they agreed to marry, and that is when the trouble started. As is going to be revealed in court, Apryl told a number of people that she would not stand for her father paying attention to other children, and that he needed to understand that point.

So, she made accusations of child molestation against him. Unfortunately for her, when she was 10 years old, she had been questioned by a forensic psychologist about allegations of child molestation and she vehemently denied any sort of thing. Yet, in the phone conversation with her father (which will be covered in a future post), she tells him that she always has remembered his alleged molestation.

There are other things as well that are going to come out in the trial, and they are not going to bode well for the prosecution or the police. As I have written before, I believe that the police really don't believe that Mr. Rasmussen is guilty of anything, but that they have committed to this case and really don't care if their lies destroy another man's life. It has come to that.

Frank R. Stockton in 1882 published a story in The Century called "The Lady or the Tiger?" in which a commoner has a love affair with the king's daughter. He is arrested, and his "trial" takes place in an arena where there are two doors.

Behind one door is a beautiful lady who immediately would be given to the man as his wife. However, what is waiting behind the other door is a ferocious tiger. Before he chooses, he looks at the princess, who signals what door he is to open, and he opens it.

Stockton ends the story with the question of which door he chooses. In the case of Michael Rasmussen, it is clear that Apryl has chosen the tiger. In her view, if she cannot have him fully to herself, then neither Becky nor her children can have him at all. It is that simple, and it is that awful. If it means destroying her own father in order to get at Becky, then so be it.

I am not making up the attitudes. As the prosecution is going to be finding out in the trial scheduled for next week, Apryl has talked to a lot of people and she has spoken her mind on this subject. Furthermore, I have serious doubts that she will be a good prosecution witness. Moreover, she also asked for a restraining order against her father, claiming that she had "just remembered" that he tried to kill her by running over her in a car and that he had savagely beaten her mother. The judge seemed skeptical, and I suspect that her "recovered memory" here is not going to help her in court.

Once upon a time in America, pre-Mondale Act and all of the horror that has accompanied it, police and prosecutors would not have taken long to be onto Apryl's scheme and told her to take a hike. Unfortunately, police departments today are full of people like Kim Selkirk, who claim to see child molesters behind every bush and tree, and the lure of federal money for these cases has proven to be enough to break down the truth.

There is much more to this case that makes it abominable. And I will cover what I can in future posts.


Doc Ellis said...

Greetings, Dr Anderson


Thank you for writing this

Doc Ellis 124

Anonymous said...

OMG, This is so sad. Thanks, Mr Anderson for keeping us up to date on all that is going on, Love your blogs,

Anonymous said...

Professor Anderson, you are not a psychologist, and I caution you against giving the kind of psychological testimony that you give in this blog post.

Rob said...

Anonymous @ 2/25/11 9:01 AM:

What basis do you have for this warning? Simply the fact that he isn't a trained psychologist?

The last time I looked, truth wasn't determined by a college degree or a place of employment. (No, I'm not saying that what he said is necessarily true.)

William L. Anderson said...

I did not base this upon amateur psychology. Instead, I based it upon statements that Apryl herself has made to others.

She has been saying a lot of things to a lot of people, and many of her statements will be revealed in court.

You are correct in that I am not a professional psychologist, but I can understand English.

Anonymous said...

@9:01 troll. Since you obviously care about a psychologist's involvement, perhaps you skipped the part in the post about Apryl denying to a forensic psychologist that she ever was molested? Fundamental reading skills can be either your friend or your enemy. Or maybe you are just a troll. lol.

KC Sprayberry said...

I kept coming back to this post and couldn't help but notice how this girl and my daughter are so much alike. They want something and are willing to do anything, including making horrendous false accusations, to get it. Their goals were different but they tried the same crime - the crime of false reporting - to get attention and destroy a life because they were denied what they wanted. It's a sad statement of today's society when people get away with these things in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Like Apryl, my daughter bragged of her actions to her friends, likening them to getting even. That it happened when she was a teen and she confessed, even pleading guilty in juvenile court, did nothing to stop her from making same accusations, improved to get more attention, ten years later. But, thankfully, she didn't make those accusations to a cop of prosecutor, knowning she'd messed up that opportunity. Her audience was one of my brother's and his wife, who chose to believe her despite the real evidence and has caused a rift in my family. I pray for Mr. Rasmussen as much as I did for Tonya Craft. He may never get past the pain of this betrayal but living with family who loves him will be far better than a lonely prison cell. I do hope his defense attorney prevails and he is set free.

Kerwyn said...

What makes this even more sad, is there is much that Dr. Anderson cannot post due to the trial getting underway. However, once it does, I will not hold back against this deceitful witch.

Apryl suffers from selective memory ie she chooses NOT to remember all the things she has said to other people. She has recently decided that the REAL reason she talked to the police was because she witnessed him assaulting one of his step children...

The child in question would have gutted him first, told her mother second and then her mother would have taken care of any body parts remaining. Such unmitigated bullpucky this witch keeps spewing.

To the anon commenter who rails about "psychological testimony"...
Do you have the first clue about what you are addressing? Apparently not..

Please continue reading or better yet, tell Apryl I said hi.

maria said...

Good luck with your trial Michael. I will be praying for you! Please let us know the outcome. I know what you are going through, my husbands trial is going to be next month

Anonymous said...

They have it out there now, That all you have to do if you want to get back at someone is say they molested you.. And the police & prosecutor goes wild with it. This is sad but alot of kid's do it. It is to the point now when I hear it, I wonder if it really happen. They should be able to tell when where what happen, most can not, Prosecutor tell the kids when and what happen.
Sad just sad.

Anonymous said...

You are sick and twisted by your own perceptions of law and order. You have only heard one side of this story, but have already chosen a side. You claim this to be a case of jealousy and revenge, when the truth of the matter, you and your readers have been unable to grasp. The nephew came forward first, but not for revenge, but to protect Becky's children. Both cases against him, although in his past, were brought forth to protect the children in the present time, in his own house. There was no jealousy or revenge, just the fear of what might happen. You are claiming to stand up for an innocent man, but his accusors are standing up for those innocent children. They did not want to dredge up the past, to relieve those horrible expierences, but they felt it necessary for the sake of her children. Quit claiming what you don't know. For someone with such an educated mind, it sure is a little. Shut up little brain, and go beat your drum for someone who really deserves it. Your blog is full of lies and speculation.