May 17 cracked commented on The Guy Who Invented the Bong Lives in White Center and Might Lose His House.
@4 Yup. I distinctly remember seeing glass bongs in headshops in the 70s in the Bay Area. I guess my memory could be faulty, but... c'mon. This is quite a claim.
May 9 cracked commented on Mayor Murray, It’s Time to Drop Out.
@35 "innocent until proven guilty" is referring to criminal charges, which could result in jail time. For criminal cases the standard for the jury is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

For a civil case like this, where a win by the plaintiff bringing the suit would result in some kind of money award which the defendant would be ordered to pay, the standard of proof for a jury is "preponderance of the evidence," basically "more likely than not", or "over 50%" likely to be true. Before hand the plaintiff has to satisfy the court that they could win based on the evidence they will present at trial. At some point (I haven't been following the litigation status of the suit against Murray) Murray's attorney will make a motion to the court that the plaintif cannot win based on the evidence the plaintiff says he will offer in court. At that point the judge could dismiss the suit.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a legal issue here. But it is a political one. Clearly a lot of political operatives and moneymen have told Murray he's lost enough of the "public jury's" support that he can't win, so they too have withdrawn their support.

When it comes to witnesses, that is to say "anyone who will testify in court", the issue is not the motives of their attorney, but whether the witness has a motive to lie. In a suit for money, the plaintiff who gives evidence can always be painted as not credible based on their money objective. The problem for Murray here in the public arena is that those old accusers have no obvious reason to lie right now, or at least no reason to put themselves in the public eye. Speaking up is likely to cause them way more hassles in their current lives than having it not come up at all. If they had been dishonest in their previous stories, one could suppose that they are speaking out just to be consistent, but absent a money motive now, it seems just as likely that something really did happen to them and it is important to them to simply tell their story, which, if true, was not believed under the conditions that existed when they first told it many years ago.

I don't like Murray so I'm biased, and also don't have to come to any conclusions about these accusations as they relate to how I would vote. But there is ample information for a fence sitter to conclude the stories are "more likely than not" truthful. I guess the problem from a political perspective is that lots of Democratic voters won't apply a standard that rigid and, instead, to vote for someone they would apply a standard requiring that the stories be "more likely than not" unbelievable. Juries can often be cajoled into applying the standard the court tells them to apply, but in our ordinary lives we get to apply whatever standard of truth or acceptable levels of risk we want to. If this were a Republican city and Murray was accused of abusing young women when he was younger, it might not matter because Republicans as we now know often respond favorably to evidence of dominance and abuse, especially of women, but Seattle isn't a Republican city, so Murray doesn't have so much wiggle room.
May 5 cracked commented on Mayor Murray’s Tactic of Attacking His Accusers Is Common, But Experts Say It Keeps Survivors of Sexual Abuse Quiet.
@10 Yes, indeed. Saying Murray "cut his teeth working as a public defender in Portland" certainly is a weird false fact to include for a reporter. Apparently, he was a junior office worker for the public defenders office in Portland for a short time as his first job out of college ( BA in Sociology). But I don't think the definition of "public defender" has changed from meaning an attorney who works as a public defender to meaning anyone at all who works as support staff for public defense attorneys.
May 5 cracked commented on Mayor Murray’s Tactic of Attacking His Accusers Is Common, But Experts Say It Keeps Survivors of Sexual Abuse Quiet.
@10 Anything Murray personally says about this case or any related case can be used to challenge his honesty under cross examination should he need to testify about the facts at some future time and describes even the most seemingly inconsequential fact differently. He is likely wise to listen to his attorney and not talk about it.

On the other hand, his spokespeople can say anything they want, including outright falsehoods if they want and it doesn't endanger Murray's future as a witness in his own defense. For example, a spokesperson can say Murray never met someone before and if it turned out there was after all strong admissible evidence that Murray had met that person before, the spokesperson's statements couldn't be brought up in court to attack Murray's truthfulness.

It's quite a minefield for Murray, but would be much less so for a private figure. A big part of Murray's career is tied up with his reputation and electability. Since the ordinary proper response for someone facing this kind of law suit is to not talk about it other than a blanket denial, this puts Murray in a bind, because as a public figure people expect a public response on the facts, which as mentioned above, his lawyer has probably told him would be a stupid thing to do legally.

Also, the court case only involves one person, but the press and public will want to ask questions about three people, now four people. Politically, he simply has no choice but to have his spokespeople attack the various accusers credibility as strongly as possible while distancing himself from the attacks as much as he can. Its a way of indirectly expressing the outraged response of an innocent target that the public expects without the downside of an unpredictable press conference. And face it, Murray doesn't do publicly expressed anger very well.No surprise his litigation adviser would tell him not to roll the dice. But maybe its just me who finds him less sympathetic as a human when he's having a fit.

On the flip side, because of the political nature of the milieu of the case, and the predictability of Murray responding in exactly the way he has, it isn't strange at all that Lincoln Beauregard would choose a very outgoing public strategy to try to preemptively humanize his client AND any previous accusers. Anyone who thinks otherwise should raise their head and look around. The "Reality Show" approach is currently in the ascendancy in politics and law - the public expects it and will be inclined to punish you if you can't deliver.
Apr 25 cracked commented on Why Does This House Cost $1,000,000?.
@65 Actually, poor people want single family homes too, but upzoning isn't even going to create apartments they can afford.
Apr 24 cracked commented on Why Does This House Cost $1,000,000?.
The upzone fantasists here are really going to town for the developers of apartments and condos for the wealthy professionals! They love you so so much. Without first doing a massive change, the kind that isn't even being discussed at even the most basic level, change in housing regulations and bringing on serious rent control, the kind of upzoning happening in Seattle does nothing for apartment affordability. The idea that upzoning all on its own, with a sprinkle of the current faux affordable housing deals being done with developers right now, is going to bring about a sea change in housing prices is laughable on its face. These policies are only contributing to the thing you claim to be against...
Apr 21 cracked commented on Hot Money and Seattle’s Growing Housing Crisis: Part One.
Upzoning and fake "affordable housing" required in developments are just feeding these rising prices. I'm baffled that anyone thinks giving developers a freer hand will somehow lower rents and the cost of homes. Taking one two bdrm bungalow out in exchange for 3 townhomes isn't supporting lower housing costs.
Apr 18 cracked commented on Ed Murray's Accuser Wants a New Judge for the Trial.
@9 Well stated.