Seattle Times: Child Welfare Investigator in 1984 Found That Mayor Ed Murray Sexually Abused Foster Son

Comments

2
Murray's denials are Trumpian. Resign now, Ed.
3
I'm surprised this hasn't come out years ago. I'm shocked Murray would run for any office with even this determination in his past, let alone molestation.

hubristic.
4
@3--you read my mind.
5
b-b-b-but its all a political witch hunt. lets see if the city councilmembers and the other apologists have any comment about this.

the creep should have resigned months ago - gotta collect that paycheck while you can if you'll soon be unemployed for the rest of your life. thankfully he'll collect his benefits, pension, etc so he and his husband can live happily ever after.
6
@5, can you blame people for writing this off? Without independent confirmation that this was raised and investigated years ago, it certainly looked like a witch hunt. And Heckard's attorney, fined by a judge for unethical behavior, wasn't helping onthe credibility front. This information changes everything. I'm also curious how supporters will respond...
7
Stranger should contact some CPS workers and get their takes on what Murray's lawyer says.
8
Well, that's that. Who would be the mayor if he resigns?

And swamp thing, I don't think the Mayor gets a city pension. But he will have his state pension, and his husband will have a city pension from his years in the parks department.
9
Vel-Du Ray, fairly certain the Council Pres is second in line for Mayor if he resigns, so Bruce Harrell. Council can also hold a hearing and vote out the Mayor, like an impeachment. I'm not sure they're inclined to do that, though.
10
He needs to resign. Immediately. The Council needs to tell him this in no uncertain terms.
Also want to hear from Durkin, since he endorsed her. How she handles this will impact her election chances.
11
Durkan.
12
@10: That the mayor endorsed her requires no comment. She (and everyone else) can simply say that she has nothing to say on the mayor's personal situation.
13
Murray set back the LGBT progress back 10 years! At least for gay men. But the LGBTQ still won't ostracise him. Dems keep dead weight around too long. Where GOP seems to get the garrotte out quickly for their problems.
14
@13 - the GOP isn't any better at weeding out dead weight/liability. Trump being the ultimate case in point.
15
MY STORY WAS ALWAYS RIGHT THERE. IN MY EYES.
16
No. This is not a personal situation. That's not me: that's what Oregon said in providing the records to the Times and I agree. Public officials step down for much much less. Murray did great things for the LGBTQ cause, however, every second he remains defiant and in office further tarnishes that work. That's life in the public eye.

Given Durkan is his hand-picked successor, she does need to comment. ASAP. If she can't make her way through this situation, she can't make her way through the million other situations she'll face as mayor. It's not just a civic job, it's a political one. There are too many qualified candidates for Durkan to shrink from the spotlight here.
17
@9, I'm not sure impeachment mandates automatic--what--termination? Resignation? Just like at the federal level. Does it?
18
@15 - i know you are trolling, but i sort of agree. its not a good policy to judge a book by its cover but those eyes of his have always given me the creeps - of course that doesn't equal guilt, but creepy as hell indeed.
19
This sounds like something one of Trump's lawyers, or Bill Cosby's lawyers, would spin up:
His lawyer, Katherine Heekin, wrote in a letter to the Times that child protective services workers are trained to be extra cautious and err on the side of believing abuse allegations. Because of that, "The Seattle Times misunderstands the significance of the documents that it obtained recently from Oregon's Child Protective Services," Heekin said.
20
@16 #nailedit
21
He needs to resign and I plan on writin gto him and the Council that he should do so.

At this point, it's a disgrace to have him represent our city.

And yes, Durkan should say something, given she's his handpicked successor.
22
@1 gee, I dunno? Was Dennis Hastert part of the resistance? Oh. Yeah. He was Republican Speaker of The House for almost nine years - and they knew he was a pedophile the WHOLE time.
23
Another thing worth noting from the Seattle Times story: the son of a bitch is still attacking his victims. What a slimy ghoul.
24
For all the sniping by The Stranger at The Seattle Times, this news again reminds us that the heavy lifting in Seattle journalism day after day, year after year, comes most often from The Times and not the ankle biters at the Stranger.
25
Dr.Zaius dear, don't forget Donald Trump himself, who has voiced pedophilia type sentiments about his own daughters and other little girls on many occasions.
26
#1: You're a moron.
27
@24,

Seriously! It's almost like the ST has a staff and budget hundreds of times the size that of The Stranger!
28
This will either be Ed Murray's political epitaph, or will further eliminate another behavior from the list of behaviors that are political suicide (e.g. Clinton, Trump). Ugh.
29
come on slogger apologists for murray - double down! there is still time to attack the victims and their character.
30
ARTICLE V. Executive Department
Sec. 10. REMOVAL OF MAYOR
The Mayor may be removed from office after a hearing, for any willful violation of duty, or for the commission of an offense involving moral turpitude, upon written notice from the City Council at least five days before the hearing. He or she shall have the right to be present, to the aid of counsel, to offer evidence and to be heard in his or her own behalf. Upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the members of the City Council, acting as a court of impeachment, the office shall become vacant. (As adopted at November 8, 1977 election.)
31
He couldn’t just keep it to the forbidden love with Comcast and Centurylink?

Seattle centrist jibber jabberers fail again.
32
@29 - you sound kind of disappointed.
33
@3 it is troublesome that Simpson's story was always available -- he did his best to get it heard -- and all this same journalism could have been done years ago. Before the egregious Lincoln Beauregard cropped up.

The papers looked at Simpson's story years back and decided not to publish what they had, okay, but if they had pursued leads they might have gotten the current story.
34
I'm quite surprised we don't have anyone yet calling this fake nothingburger because the prosecutor said Simpson was manipulative and they couldn't make a solid case.

Why not get in ahead: the prosecutor found him credible, but knew there would inevitably be some people on any jury who would brush it off for "character" generalizations without looking carefully at the evidence. People like you, person who hasn't commented yet but will.
35
@32 - no, and also not surprised that the apologists and any city leadership is silent. ohhh, but its sunday. no way anyone could speak up on a weekend.
36
@3 It seems like he was counting on (hubristically) that the records had been destroyed...so no one would ever know.
How about him saying he didn't know of the determination? Seems highly unlikely...
37
i was a cps worker in the 80s.
there were few allegations of sexual abuse which were disbelieved - remember this was the era of satanic cult hysteria - mcmartin preschool, wenatchee, etc.
we were pretty much trained to believe where there was smoke there was fire.
of COURSE the oregon worker believed the kid.
several decades later it probably would have been stamped "inconclusive".
i'm not defending murray, i have no clue if the allegations are true, but he is right when he says social workers err on the side of safety of the child. there is no burden of proof required.
and many founded allegations are overturned on appeal.
38
Thank you, @37
Finally someone talking sense.
39
I don't see why any councilmembers or those running for council should say anything. Durkan is not his annointed successor; at this point she's simply a candidate. She's also a very savvy attorney who isn't going to say a word. It's up to Murray to resign or not resign, and according to what someone posted about the requirements for being ousted from office, he couldn't be. He hasn't done anything while in office that's up to such a standard, and he hasn't been either charged or adjudged guilty of a crime. He's in unless he leaves voluntarily.
40
Let Murray serve out his term. This is salacious and shocking, but the allegations didn't go to a criminal trial. I think people tend to forget this, while thinking the case worker's report is set in stone, when in reality it isn't.

However, this is still very damning for Murray. His political career is over.
41
@37 Here's my defense of Murray, but I am not defending Murray....
42
@35 I'm not going to defend Murray, but I will say that I still don't think Lincoln Beauregard should be practicing law.
43
From where we are, we'd say Murray "probably" molested his foster child, or something in that range of belief. I don't think anyone's confused this with "proved beyond reasonable doubt".

So then what do you do? Do you disregard "probably molested" because it's not certain, or could have had elevated suspicion from anti-homo bias? To my mind there are plenty of good candidates -- gay ones, even -- who didn't probably molest. There are lots of constraints on running for public office and this is far from the most problematic.
44
I still find the multiple accusers stories more compelling evidence than the conclusions of the child welfare investigator, because I agree with much of @37's critique of how a broad swath of social workers and the courts were approaching molestation allegations in the 80s. And many commenters here may not fully understand the continuing power at that time of the cultural assumption, even among people who supported gay rights, that gay men were more likely to be pedophiles or abusers.

BUT, not enough mention is being made of the way Murray and his attorneys have be LYING about the conclusions of this child welfare investigator and the DA's office. I do not believe that Murray didn't know about the CPS finding and the 1984 DA letter published by the Times makes is very clear they in no way "exonerated" Murray. Most likely, Murray's lawyer and investigators believed the documentation had been lost or destroyed, leaving them free to lie. So, they lied, over and over.

Here's a link to a copy of the actual DA letter. It has more punch when you read the original, rather than extracted quotes:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/…
45
@10, 11, 16, 21 - OK, done. Thoughts?

@39 - Wrong but thank you for playing. She is very savvy and she DID say something. What did you make of it?
46
Um, of course the prosecutor claimed the suspect was guilty. That's what prosecutors do, they attest to the guilt of suspects. Here's the best quote yet:

"Although he was not indicted, the Protective Services department feels that the allegations are true, as does the district attorney’s office.”

An indictment is issued by a grand jury when it determines there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. There was no indictment against Murray, despite CPS and the prosecutor's office gathering all of the evidence they could. But they had feelings! Well, that's certainly a good enough reason to jump straight to a guilty verdict, thirty years later. Who needs juries or courts?

Did anyone catch the detail about Simpson having accused his other foster parent of molestation? That case was dropped as well.

Ah, who cares, we're trying to gin up a lynch mob here, quit bothering us with your so-called facts...