Saturday, February 26, 2011

The Ordeal of Michael Rasmussen, Part V: Some Questions for Det. Kim Selkirk

Michael Rasmussen will go on trial this week in Charles County, accused of molesting and sexually assaulting his daughter Apryl, who now is an adult. The person who has most pushed the charges has been Charles County Det. Kim Selkirk, the former bank teller who now wants to help convince a jury to throw Mr. Rasmussen into prison for the rest of his life.

Given the seriousness of the charges, and given the seriousness of the potential outcome, I believe that some questions are in order for Selkirk, who most certainly will be testifying under oath during the trial. (Testifying "under oath" means that if Selkirk does not tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," then she is committing perjury, which is a felony in the State of Maryland. However, don't hold your breath, as police regularly lie under oath and they are charged with perjury only when it is politically-expedient for prosecutors to do so.)

Here are some questions that I would like to ask Selkirk:
  1. You claim that Mr. Rasmussen "confessed" to you and Det. Austin when he was arrested in March, 2010, yet you failed to record the so-called confession. Can you explain why you would not record such a thing, given that before then, Mr. Rasmussen was not willing to talk to you or Det. Austin because he had clearly said that he did not trust you?
  2.  What made Mr. Rasmussen suddenly trust you on this occasion, and if you proved so trustworthy to him, why did he refuse to sign the "confession" that you so graciously wrote up for him?
  3. How was it that you managed to misquote Mr. Rasmussen regarding Apryl's question, "Do you want me to lie to the police?" As per the recorded conversation -- a conversation to which you were privy when it was being recorded -- Mr. Rasmussen clearly tells his daughter, "Tell them what you feel." Can you explain to me, then, how it was that you claimed in those notes you took during the supposed "confession" that Mr. Rasmussen told his daughter to lie when, in fact, nowhere in that conversation he said such a thing?
  4. Did you take Mr. Rasmussen's five-year-old stepdaughter to the police headquarters, where you interrogated her for a long time, trying to get her to claim Mr. Rasmussen had molested her?
  5. If you took that little girl to be interrogated and spent time questioning her, can you explain why you did not take notes or record the conversation?
  6. If that conversation took place, did you attempt to follow the standard protocol when authorities interview children who they believe might have been abused? Did you have a forensic interviewer there, or have an official who was experienced in interviewing young children?
  7. Is it true that the child insisted that her stepfather had NOT molested her?
  8. Is it true that you got angry at her because she would not say what you wanted her to say?
  9. Have you had any conversations with that child's father or have you taken part in any scheme to try to have the children taken away not only from Mr. Rasmussen -- who has not been accused of molesting them -- as well as their mother, despite the fact that the courts clearly had given her custody?
  10. Have you made any other misrepresentations of what you claim Mr. Rasmussen said in the recorded phone conversation with Apryl versus what Mr. Rasmussen actually said? If that is true, and you cannot even truthfully report on something for which there is a recording (I'm asking hypothetically, of course), then why should anyone believe your recollection of this supposed "confession" when all there is to show for the conversation are your notes, notes that we know already have serious inaccuracies?
Now, I have just asked a few hypothetical questions, although I am sure that Mr. Rasmussen's attorney will have even more questions for Selkirk when he cross-examines her next week. However, I would like to end this post with just one more question for the detective: When you raise your right hand as you are being sworn in as a witness, will you have the fingers of your left hand crossed as you put them behind your back? Just wondering.


Anonymous said...

Although it is off the subject of Dr. Anderson’s post, I ran across a story in today’s paper that said the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments on Camreta v. Greene on Tuesday of this week. It appears that the case has followed the well-worn “bleed’em and plead’em” path used by prosecutors when their case goes sour due to incompetent, illegal and unethical shenanigans on the part of their investigators and case workers. As I read more abut the case, I could not help but think of Tim “Crooked” Deal being given free rein in that jurisdiction. Our little storm trooper would have loved it.

Questioning a 9 year old developmentally challenged girl for over 2 hours in the presence of an armed officer and a DHS investigator and no one else is so wrong that it boggles the mind. Then, subjecting her to a forensic medical exam without her mother present is unconscionable. Even the district court noted how wrong that was. This entire fiasco was wrong no matter what this court decides. More details are available at these websites.

Doc Ellis 124 said...

Greetings Dr Anderson


Thank you for writing this

Doc Ellis 124

Kerwyn said...

Today, Monday, the trial starts...

Note: The prosecution has no evidence so they are now going to attempt a "Tonya Craft". Rather than try the facts, they are going to try Character instead. They may want to rethink that tactic since this man has a sterling reputation not only in the community, but with his close friends as well.

KC Sprayberry said...

Kerwyn, seems this prosecutor has as much brains as the dynamic duo. Don't these people realize that smearing characters is an old defense tactic? Juries, from what I've been told by people who've been on them, absolutely hate character assasination. It'll be hard to battle but maybe the correct idea is...bring it on. If this is all the prosecution has, they will prove once again how poorly this case was right from the beginning. It's awful how our justice system has stooped this low. Or maybe I should say, it's awful how everyone now notices how our justice system has stopped this low.

Anonymous said...

Let the courts decide instead of trying to take down innocent people, such as the victim in this case.

Anonymous said...

There are a lot of assumptions made by Mr. Anderson. He is asking for proof. Where is his proof? Remember, for those who are gullible, it is not against the law to lie in print. Not everything in life is a conspiracy. Thank God for police, they SERVE AND PROTECT the community, even those such as Mr. Anderson who look for wrong doing where there isn't any. The VICTIM is the innocent. A lot have children have been protected and been allowed justice for crimes committed against them by Detectives. Let them do there job! Let the defense attorney and the prosecutor go to trial, NOT THE MEDIA!

Kerwyn said...

This "victim" is not only NOT innocent, she is not innocent in her own words.

Apryl wrote MANY letters, documents, cards, statements to others where she does not evidence these accusations and in fact DENIES her father ever did anything to her. As a point of fact, she, and I quote, "Vehemently denies her father has ever touched her and jumped to her feet gesturing...".

Since the time she made these accusations, she has continued to embroider the lies with bolder and bolder statements that are easily disproved.

She is dishonest and revenge driven. This is provable in her own handwriting, her own words and her own statements.

Anonymous said...

Is the truth to hard to see. Both victims did not come forward for revenge, they came forward to protect Becky's children. Kerwyn and Anderson should be locked up with him. They are molesting her all over again. The only conspiracy is this blogspot.