The Stranger's Endorsements for the August 3, 2021, Primary Election



@105 I'm making a distinction here, of course, with needles. Needles don't blow up buildings or start fires. But people - whether they're homeless or not - shouldn't litter with them.


At least the people camping in public parks might be able to get into housing, if only because they're right up in the community's face and the community is forced to take action. In the case of this encampment coming down by the school, for example, I just read that the school is even helping this "miracle worker" man (e.g. expenses) FBO his work placing people (if you read my post earlier, it's amazing how quickly he's already found "permanent" or stable housing for 40-50% of the group.

But I'm guessing there are many more homeless people the city doesn't even know about. I once gave a ride to a middle-aged homeless woman who asked me if I could; she was living in her car, had a horrific experience with the shelters and didn't like any of the encampments (I offered to bring her somewhere else for services or help, but she didn't want to go to any of these places).

Anyway, as I drove, I can't say I didn't wonder if I was about to find out I made huge mistake - at one point, for example, she began to drift off into mental illness, and I considered the possibility that she could suddenly assault me while I was driving. I've seen homeless people who have rapidly deteriorated into severe forms of mental illness "as a result" of living under such harsh conditions. And I think this was partly the case for her.

But I kept talking with her about her situation; she had grown up in Seattle. The one thing she needed was an apartment. I described to her what I'd heard about Housing First in Utah, and asked her what she thought about that program - and she thought it sounded very good. But I wonder if people like herself are even under the radar of these counts. I'm betting there are many who aren't.

I can't imagine why anyone would be sanely opposed to just giving a woman in that situation a modest studio or hotel room. And maybe a social worker to help her get on track. There are many older women homeless, and in my opinion, they should be among the first to get into housing. They are extremely vulnerable. Obviously families with children too; or homeless youths, who might be best served in group homes.

There are different populations of homelessness, within the drug using community, as well (for ex, whether using your drugs could blow up a building - or just wind up as litter, the later of which is probably an easy intervention "in and of itself" once you've identified the person).


Well, thank you North American Jay Bird for answering my question and providing the insights I was looking for.


@108 I'm not sure if that's sarcastic or sincere. If sincere, you're most welcome.

@109 I wasn't trying to imply anyone was a racist with my use of "conservative" in quotes. Whether or not raindrop is - I don't know their posts enough, myself - though I've seen a number of posters express that view. I was/am implying the term deserves skepticism; I observe many so-called conservatives advancing rather right-wing extremist policies -- tensor, for example, who has basically stated that a person's homeless status should deprive of the same right as anyone else to sit on a lawn in a public park.

On the distinctions with criminal and public health. There was another example in today's news since police arrested someone they believe was the rock thrower on I-5; this particular individual, they report, was indeed living in an encampment near the freeway. I agree, of course, this should be treated as a dangerous criminal issue -- at least, at the outset.

But King 5 reports that the city/county/whatever is now using this person's behavior as a pretext for closing a camp that reportedly been there for years. Most of the residents did not commit these crimes - one of them, an elderly, impoverished and possibly disabled black man - who has lived there for 4 years - made this complaint to the news people. He didn't do anything. Why should he have to move? Do you throw out everyone in an apartment building, for example, if one resident is arrested? (They usually don't even throw that resident out, if they even bother with what they're using the unit for.)

It's all about appearances and otherwise they don't care about the human beings - so as long as it's out-of-sight it doesn't exist -- and in this case, it wasn't out-of-sight enough. In fact, I daresay the authorities don't even care about the motorists.

King 5 reports they went through the motions of offering all the evicted residents a bed in another failed shelter and they all (understandably IMV) refused. They should offer people viable alternatives like hotel rooms, minimally, or real apartments. That include the freedom to come and go like anyone else, without demoralizing and oppressive oversight with hours upon hours of state-controlled bureaucratic harassment, plus the right to privacy, individual bathrooms, and the right to lock your door.

And why hasn't anyone yet found stable housing in terms of a real apartment for this elderly black man who's been on the street minimally 4 years - probably much longer? At this point, he should be way past a hotel room and into a real apartment for himself.

Shame on this city, a supposed beacon of liberal and egalitarian ideology. These people weren't even under the radar, as in the case of this older woman I met who was living in her car wherever she could escape notice.


I'm taking a closer look at Nguyen and think I may go with him, instead. At worst, he'll advance to round 2 where we can have a substantive debate between him and Constantine. He has a lot of fresh energy, Constantine's positives and more on homelessness (like the hotels, though we need far more and sooner, not later); I'm understanding he's opposed to the charter amendment (but stand to be corrected? he's a little low key there - so I'm having trouble finding his position) -- and this would also (to my understanding) vest undue power in the hands of any given mayor and violate people's civil rights; also, Constantine supported this youth prison - and as a very high priority, even. (I am opposed to the youth prison.)

My ballot finally arrived. It's refreshing to have a limited number of items. Sometimes these ballots so overstuffed with names and issues - I don't know how anyone could vote in an informed way.

I don't the Stranger wrote a very good endorsement piece on Nguyen or I would have looked closer earlier. It was only one of the board posters here - Polly - whose random comment caused me to take a closer look. I'm still looking but I'm beginning to lean with him.


@111 Excuse the typos; dropped a few words there, but if you know how to read, and in good faith, I'm sure you were able to fill in the blanks.


I'm also looking again at my "safe," "conventional" and "boring" choice (Holmes) for the city attorney. I'm a little more apprehensive about Kennedy (vs Nguyen/Constantine) but I'm learning about some other good points with her ... I think there's an argument to send her to round 2 even if you're undecided/have reservations about a final choice simply because Davison is looking so bad to me right now (some very intolerant and far-right campaigners), choosing Kennedy would help shut Davison down in round 1 -- and we can then have a more productive discussion about what changes are really needed. So I'm thinking about that, too.


During the homelessness crisis, we need to be honest with our language. Stop the double-speak. Give some thought to the tens of thousands of Seattleites who still think words should have reliable meanings or are people new to the slippery ironies of Seattle political discourse.

There is no such thing as a "homeless camp." It is largely a media-fueled fiction. It has no legal status and no definition in any government policy. There can be a number of people who may or may not be trespassing in a particular area, but that is not a camp. It's not a thing. Homelessness is a thing.

We have to stop using the word "parks" to refer to Seattle parks. If someone can live 24/7 in a park, any place they want in a park, and do anything they want, then it's not a park, it's something else. In official city publications and city boosterism, stop counting parks as "acres of city parks" and be honest about what they are. Change the map labels and change the names. At the very least, remove the "no overnight camping" signs from the parks. If you're not going to enforce a rule, then don't post it.

If you're only going to enforce a law on some people and not others, then be upfront about it. If everyone entering a "park" does so at their own risk, then say so. Put it on the signage.

Let's be honest about what we're really proposing when we propose to let people put up a tent in any public property they want:

1) You can break any minor laws you want as long as you have a tent with you. (I call this the REI Rule.)
2) The city doesn't have to be accountable for poor living conditions or public safety or job safety if a person sleeps in a public place.
3) If you apply to work for the Parks Department, you will actually have a job in housing, and the job description is largely untrue.


Wealthy rent-evading Democracy Voucher grifter candidate for mayor would make Donald Trump proud:


@116 I'm still leaning with Gonzalez, partly for statistical reasons (I think the mayor needs to understand the Constitution - and she does) - but Houston (who I hope we see more of) - is back into my radar today because he was reportedly at the Medicare For All march. So I'm going to be reading more about him.

In the meantime, I have changed from "probably boring Holmes" (and never Davison) to (definitely) Kennedy. I understand she wants to take the state to court on rent control. Now that's more like it, when I read about a candidate. She has my vote (from the statistical pot of undecideds or the Holmes category).


@115 IMV, parks should be open (with increased maintenance) 24/7. They are in Paris, for example - and other cities/nations where parks are part of a vibrant nightlife. (And if people want to nap/sleep in a park at any time of the day or night, I don't see why that should be a problem.)

See Bloomberg City Lab 6/14/2019 "Why Do Parks Close At Night?"


The Urbanist has helpful discussion of the candidates ITO city planning issues (whether or you agree with all their endorsements). They also have candidate questionnaires for each candidate that I'm finding helpful (side-note: Sara Nelson didn't even bother to fill hers out).

The Seattle Times link (below) has a helpful layout to getting a quick rundown on candidate positions on key issues. (It doesn't look like you're limited by daily article allotments either):

I'm no longer leaning, but deciding on Gonzales, and partly because (per the link) she recognizes the importance of these hotel rooms and the basic rights of dignity and privacy for people - and being able to shut and lock an effin' door - and a bathroom, to boot. It's one of the good things I see Constantine having done (other things too, but) I'd be hopeful that someone like Nguyen would partner effectively with Gonzales on continuing efforts in that arena (since I'm not seeing discussion by him on that front, one way or the other.)

I agree with Houston that people who are homeless need housing, period. Not a whole lot of this other barrage of services and spending on more bureaucratic nonsense. The tiny houses are reportedly helping some people (by their own words), I'm understanding they go up pretty quickly too, but I think they're limited and clearly not for most people. I think they're pretty challenging structures to live in even if you're a relatively healthy person who isn't coping with the devastation of living on the street. So I think hotels are greatly preferable as far as immediate housing is concerned -- and I'm kind of wondering why he's not advocating any other avenues (unless that's the Seattle Times, and not him).

I do like that Constantine came up through the local public education system (while Nguyen didn't - and I'm also a little concerned about his connections to Microsoft and the private sector) -- but Constantine also supported this youth prison while Nguyen was opposed, and I think this shows a real failure in understanding here, on Constantine's part, especially if we're talking about education (vs prisons). And .. despite Nguyen's private sector ties, he's not taking corporate pac monies.

I'm seeing very little information "out there" on this ballot initiative for another property tax increase to fund this particular program. Seattle Times thinks this particular program has a record of effectively using monies. I'd like to see other publications discussing it, as well. If anyone wants to share articles or resources from various perspectives, more pros or cons, I'd be interested in looking at it.


It's interesting to me that no one in any of the races (though I stand to be corrected if someone has a link showing otherwise) - with all this transportation/city planning/climate change talk - is discussing the total banning of vehicles in some of the downtown or more congested areas. Also the city beginning to acquire and take down parking lots altogether in order to build more parks, green spaces, recreation centers and playgrounds.

This is not "pie in the sky" talk. They're doing this successfully in cities elsewhere on our planet. This local ridiculous registration fee they employed (which the Stranger endorsed in a fit of desperation) i.e. to raise money IOT maintain bus service (which I believe in richly funding - just not this way) -- they could instead ban cars outright in the downtown area that dominated the discussion of that terribly flawed and unjust initiative -- thereby and also compelling the wealthy commuters who drive into those locations (and who don't otherwise use the buses or have to pay the car tab fees that are meant to make up for their lack thereof) -- to have a vested interest in funding transit because (then) they have to use it themselves. It would improve the quality of the transit system too -- and -- I bet, then, if anyone had to call 911 for a police response to a threatening incident while on board public transit -- they wouldn't have to wait 20 minutes for SPD to finally get there.

Whenever the wealthy have to ride, the quality of the service will improve. Kind of like the wealthy using the public school system - suddenly the school get their funding and quality educators.

So ban the cars from these areas and force them to use it if they want to get to work. Then have the city acquire the parking lots, tear them down, and build more green spaces and playgrounds and outdoor picnic areas and fountains and art in public places instead.


BTW - can someone point me to specific bills Nguyen has (both) sponsored and signed onto - in the legislature? What are his proudest achievements there? What are some justified criticisms? And .. has he done anything there on behalf of state-wide guaranteed and egalitarian health care?


"But the parks belong to
everyone in the public, not
just those who object to tents or
people's peaceful presence at night"
@ -- NAJB

gosh you had to up and spring that on ole tentsy without warming him up to it first? but what about his Worldview? didja consider that? an highly-disturbing notion like that could prove Fatal. we Do oh so hope he can recover ...


@70: As it's blatantly obvious you will never get here on your own, I'll give you the answer: starting with de-funding SPD is a complete political non-starter, for the very reason you stubbornly refuse to recognize: the City has contractual obligations to SPOG, and cannot simply abrogate those obligations on a political whim. You also lose large constituencies which always vote, e.g. homeowners across the North End, when you imply they'll lose police protection for their families so the City Council can pander to self-appointed activists.

The way to go is as I defined it @68: sell it as the much-needed, money-saving reform that it is. Follow that path -- which is what CM Herbold falsely promised to voters in District 1 -- and you could eventually realize a 70% reduction in the number of SPD officers.

"Herbold was never serious about defunding the police and you getting your panties in a knit over her rhetoric last Summer only showed your naivete. For the future, pay less attention to speeches and more attention to actions and interests. The world will start making a lot more sense to you."

While I certainly hope you delivered the last two sentences forcefully into the nearest mirror, CM Herbold was in fact sincere in wanting to contradict the promise she made to get re-elected; she just wasn't able to do so, for the very same contractual reasons you won't recognize. (It's hardly the first time she's incompetently attempted to implement a policy which was publicly recognized as a failure before she tried it; her foolish jumping on the "Save the Showbox" bandwagon showed similarly poor judgment.) When the inanity of the Defunderpants Gnomes hit the ineptitude of our City Council, hilarity ensued, and the rest of us have yet to stop laughing at you. You don't like being the enormous butt of an enormous joke, but you earned it, and you have to wear it -- no matter how many times you change your screen name to avoid it.

"You can't very well declare a tool a failure when it was never used to begin with."

If you have already clearly and convincingly demonstrated you cannot defund the SPD under any circumstances, then you cannot use the threat of defunding the SPD as a bargaining tactic. That's a pretty solid and clear piece of logic, which explains why it was totally lost on you.

"Your list is worthless if you have no too [sic] to implement it. You don't like the current methods people are exploring to bring about reform such as defunding? Fine, give me a more effective tool than a wish list on The Stranger, because frankly that along with relying on the good graces of the current city counsel [sic] is not getting the job done."

Thank you for agreeing with my statements at the end of @63 and @68. As I'd rather suspected, a repeated hard pounding of basic facts represents the bast way to communicate with you. (And, you're quite the one to talk about "a wish list on The Stranger".)

"Those within the criminal institution such as judges, prosecutors, police unions and city councils..."

While I probably shouldn't feed your paranoia, if our entire governing system is corrupt, why start reform efforts with the lowest level of the executive branch? Any corruption at the top will inevitably seep down, rendering useless any reforms we could make. We should start exactly where you and I agree we should start, which is with reform of the legislative branch, i.e. our City Council. They control the appropriation of tax money, they're responsible for oversight, and they have to get elected.

"Are you going to go to Mike Solan and ask pretty please?"

Still don't know what "decertifying SPOG" means, eh? And yet you blather endlessly about police reform, which by this point is sadly unsurprising.

The rest of your bile also makes little sense, but I do wonder why the City Council would want to have the police attack the very activists to whom the Council was pandering. You never gave any examples of our Council's "diktats" the SPD brutally enforced, so I'm assuming the entire idea comes straight from your paranoid imagination.

Finally, I made no reference to any events which took place in the "Wiemar" Republic. I made reference to tyrannical events in Nazi Germany. The entire point was that the Nazis engaged in blatantly illegal acts even though they absolutely controlled a totalitarian police state. Referring to events in the Weimar Republic would have completely failed to support that point.


@89 - "Seattle has ZERO to say about how most crimes are punished. What is/is not a felony (including sex crimes) and how they wil be punished are set by the state Legislature."

That is certainly the illusion prosecutors prefer to perpetuate, but the reality is prosecutors have wide discretion over how they choose to interpret laws to the point of using them in contradiction to the intent of the legislature when the law was passed whenever it serves their intent.

The war on drugs provided an excellent example of this. The legislature in the 80's and 90's passed one set of laws against users and another more severe set of laws to punish dealers, or "the worst of the worst." Prosecutors responded by shrinking the definition of user so small very few people would qualify, then blew up the definition of seller (buying drugs for a friend on your day to buy) then spent 2-3 decades using harsh felony laws to punish minor criminals as if they were major drug traffickers. They have repeated the same strategy with their war on sex work. They have shrunk the definition of what it means to be a customer to a point where it only applies to the 3% of sex work that is street prostitution while expanding the definition of pimping to the point where the 97% of customers meet sex workers on line run the risk of qualify as pimps for routine customer behavior such as writing reviews.

When the legislature last updated that pimping law in the 70' there was no internet and they could not have imagined it would be used in the way it is now being used by the King County prosecutors office.

I know what you will say because you post with the predictable mindset of a prosecutor even though you lied in the past at some point by claiming you worked as a defense attorney. You will say "well if a prosecutor reinterprets the law against what the legislature intended that will surely be struck down a superior court judge." In reality, many of the superior court judges in King County, who previously worked for Dan Satterberg as prosecutors, will tell you "a DA has near limitless discretion in how they choose to interpret and apply the law." Very different than your disingenuous story of how the legislature decides the law.

"County judges generally are the ones who impose sentences but the ranges they can consider are also set by state law."

More prosecutorial double speak. Washington has mandatory minimums and prosecutors set the length of incarceration by how they decide to stack the charges against you, leading to a harsh plea deal system where prosecutors routinely threaten the innocent into pleading guilty so they do not face the risk of decades if they go to trial. It's so effective that pre-trial settlments were about 75% before mandatory minimums and are about 99% now. Sure, if a prosecutor charges you with 12 felonies for a crime the judge can determine whether you get 5 years or 50 years, but by stacking charges prosecutors routinely set the range and limit the discretion of judges.

That and judges almost always hue to the recommendation the prosecutor makes at sentencing.

Stop pretending like prosecutors are just well intentioned bureaucrats out their enforcing the law. the operate with no oversight and near limitless discretion to include absolute immunity, harmless error doctrine and mandatory minimums to name just a few of the tools both legal and illegal at their disposal.

County judges generally are the ones who impose sentences but the ranges they can consider are also set by state law. Fortunately, the Seattle politicians who wish to give a pass to all manner of crime have no jurisdiction over anything really serious. I cant imagine how anyone is going to run a retail store if the powers that be decide to stop prosecuting shoplifters, though. My guess is that they will start hiring larger security personnel who will beat the snot out of suspected thieves. Not sure that this is an improvement.

You don't need to "guess at what retailers will do" when the police stop enforcing the law because they police have been in a death spiral for the past 30 years on clearance rates with rape clearance rates recently hitting an embarrassing 9% for SPD.

You need to spend less time asking why they are not prosecuting shoplifting and instead ask why over the past 10 years as the SPD budget increased 68%, clearance rates for violent crime hit an all time low.


Edit: This should have been in quotes:

"County judges generally are the ones who impose sentences but the ranges they can consider are also set by state law. Fortunately, the Seattle politicians who wish to give a pass to all manner of crime have no jurisdiction over anything really serious. I cant imagine how anyone is going to run a retail store if the powers that be decide to stop prosecuting shoplifters, though. My guess is that they will start hiring larger security personnel who will beat the snot out of suspected thieves. Not sure that this is an improvement."

to which I responded:
You don't need to "guess at what retailers will do" when the police stop enforcing the law because they police have been in a death spiral for the past 30 years on clearance rates with rape clearance rates recently hitting an embarrassing 9% for SPD.

You need to spend less time asking why they are not prosecuting shoplifting and instead ask why over the past 10 years as the SPD budget increased 68%, clearance rates for violent crime hit an all time low.


I recently heard that, in the case of the brutal strangulation and rape of a young woman at Greenlake, the family is STILL waiting for the DNA results. Autumn Lee Stone, that is - that's 2 years ago, as of this August, and in a case that even received media attention, and outside analysis by crime specialists. So, how many of these key criminal evidence samples are sitting around - and amidst this kind of money? And, this is during the tenure of a woman mayor who doesn't share her own address because she's concerned about being a criminal target. What does this say about women politicians supposedly caring about the issues of women in our communities?

On shoplifting, I sympathize small business owners vs big corporate pharmaceutical chains like Ride-Aide where I once saw an elderly woman - clearly in poverty by her dress and appearance - shop-lift a personal care item. Would I report that? Hell no. (What about you, tensor? Cus if you would, I think that's pathetic.) She looked at me, too, as I randomly happened to glance over and see her slipping this into her pocket or bag (I forget - this was many years ago). She was probably in her late 70s or early 80s.

Are people aware that women in America are reportedly at "severe risk" for "extreme poverty" in their later years. Well, it was a real "Les MIserables" moment, there is Rite Aide, and personally speaking, I chose, at that moment, to stand with the miserables (sounds like a great name for a band, if it hasn't already been used) - and as a matter of moral law which is far higher than "the" law per the State. If people had enough money to live, most shoplifters would not be shoplifting. Raise social security to a liveable amount, FGS.

On the elections, btw, I like Brianna Thomas, but I agree with the Urbanist that she had the misfortune of running against an extremely promising organizer (Nikkita Oliver who's way ahead - and ran a kick-ass campaign for mayor). So Oliver's getting my vote, but I hope Thomas runs again as the central pick in another election. Because I'm reading that she's been very effective - just more backstage - on a number of key issues, including the Democracy Vouchers (which, BTW, I agree, should be the only money candidates can run on - and any candidates should be able to accept them with clear dictates on how they're spent and recovered at the end, if not spent). But I think it's Oliver this time.


BTW, here are the Nuremberg Laws as presented by the National Archives - 'Archives Receives Original Nazi Documents That “Legalized” Persecution of Jews.' IMV, these Seattle issues around homelessness, observed even among people of seemingly well-intent (for example, Harrell and Farrell), are chillingly similar, in a number of foreboding ways. Biden may be a brief psychological reprieve, so to speak, but economically speaking, our nation is still in deep fucking doo-doo, with or without Trump - who will be running again in order to keep you voting and subdued, minimally, for people like Biden.


@127 that is ...


@126 Furthermore on shoplifting and big pharma chains ... I went to the store one day to buy an over-the-counter brand of allergy medicine for a family member. It's very pricey and, for them, the only over-the-counter brand that works. Well, it was nowhere to be seen where it usually is, so I went to the pharmacist and asked. Lo and behold, this over-the-counter allergy medicine was locked behind the counter because, in the words of the pharmacist, "so many people were shoplifting" this particular medicine. Consider, too, that the big pharma company they're shoplifting from - is also blocking passage of single payer by buying up (or really, shoplifting, you could say) our representatives in Congress. Because effective allergy medicine (among other forms of health care) should be guaranteed, and as part of a modern 21st C Canadian-style single payer health care system.

Which also reminds me of a time, years ago, I was standing on line in another pharmacy and an elderly man was begging the pharmacist for his medicine - but his coverage would carry it until the following week, so they wouldn't give it to him - and even though that one dose could prevent him from dying before that happened. There was no dispute there between the old man and the pharmacist -- it was "just that" big pharma said no. Honestly, would you GAS if he shoplifted it (if it were possible) -- or if the miserables, "patiently on line" at that moment, decided they'd had enough of "patience," and just took the dose of medicine for this elderly man, and by force?


@129 typo - his coverage [wouldn't, that is] cover it until the following week; i.e. the pharmacist told him he could pay out-of-pocket, but it was obscenely expensive, as quoted, and the pharmacist indicated his understanding with the elderly man's pleas that he could literally die without it (it was related to his heart or strokes or something like) - if he had to wait for the coverage to kick in or approve. Honestly, if the miserables on the line had decided they'd had enough of "patience" with this Kafkaesque and all-too-often quintessentially American scene, I think the pharmacist himself wouldn't have needed much convincing "by force."


@105 That was "access" BTW. (Next time you hear a politician use the term.)


@126: If one of the many belligerent homeless guys at Green Lake killed her, would that be alright with you? Because I mentioned (@56) the brutal murder of a homeless woman by a homeless guy in Cal Anderson Park, and you told me (@74) to shut up about it. Why do you care so much about one person's death in one of our parks, and not another person's death? Does the death matter only if the victim was housed?


@132 Does your reference to the murder in Cal Anderson mean that YOU don't care about the one in Green Lake? What an silly argument you fabricate, and coupled with your usual and pretentious moral posturing.

What's really going on here? Did my reference to your idol Durkan hit a nerve? I notice you get very knee-jerk reactive whenever posters bring her name up, and as I did. Are you deflecting and covering for her shabby record?

How come she reportedly cares so much about her own safety that voters aren't even allowed to know where her wealthy, neo-liberal and gated self lives - but all these DNA tests for other women who were actually harmed are still sitting at SPD years later? And with her administration having done NOTHING about it. Hmm?

I never told you to shut up @72 - though that might be a good idea, tensor - I said you were running at the mouth with a Willie Horton ad, only aimed at the homeless instead with your bigotry and hate (if that's "shut up," so be it - you sure deserve it). I also said that most murders are committed by people with homes. In fact, more than 1/2 of those where the killer/victims are known, the people knew each other beforehand. (Look it up yourself at the FBI.) This, too, was the case for the one in Cal Anderson - a murder/suicide actually (the killer committed suicide afterwards) -- a domestic violence homicide - the victim was the killer's partner or ex-partner; so it is not even an example of a homeless person "preying on random park goers" - OMINOUS MUSIC - as in your Willie Horton styled ad - or your "Reefer Madness movie" (as I also compared). My understanding from statistics is "crimes" committed by homeless persons are generally non-violent "nuisance" offenses. (Kind of like your posting.)

Furthermore, I have looked at the Greenlake story in some detail and, on that ground, as well, it's very unlikely she was killed by anyone who was homeless. It's far more plausible she knew her assailant in that case TOO (like the Cal Anderson victim) AND that any one of those suspects had housing.

How terrible for YOU, tensor, that you not only can't pin every murder on the homeless - you can't even pin most. It's not about the victim, for you - it's about your hatred for the poor and vulnerable. You'll say anything to "get them." You remind me of people encouraging lynch mobs to go after black men for crimes they did not commit either. But there was the stereotype and prejudice -- the hysteria - and which you apparently seek to encourage with your posting.

And -- you don't even address the most relevant issues in terms of the police dept. and this particular victim. I don't think you even care about the family having this murder solved. Your original accusation being total projection. You just want to cover for the Durkan administration's poor record - and swiftly pin everything on the poor - which would also deflect from the way this investigation has not been handled, period. Pathetic.

I've never met any "belligerent homeless guys at Green Lake," either, and I bet I know the park a whole lot more than you do -- if you even go out to parks at all given your possibly delusional state-of-mind. So this is just more of your bullshit. Plus, when the murder in question happened, there were hardly any tents at Greenlake, if any. The Green Lake encampment is a more recent development. And -- I actually walked past that area after the police arrived that day. No one was around on the west side of the park except for a few walkers. If the tents had been there, the campers might have been able to help with the investigation. Their presence might have even served as a deterrent to what happened that day. How sad that you politicize everything at the expense of real factual analysis and problem solving.


@133 Let me state this point overtly (rather than suggestively) for further emphasis. IF the family had the DNA test results in this particular Greenlake case, the murder investigation could probably conclude with a legitimate arrest, and based on other evidence and issues in the investigation.

So, why hasn't the "feminist" Durkan administration cared about solving this woman's murder - in a public park where children play and women like to walk - and when the evidence is so closely within reach?

And - why did the decision-makers at the SPD engage in rapid conclusions even wildly at odds with the evidence they already had -- and by the words of professionals in their own investigation team -- and who were there when the victim's body was recovered? The decision-makers quickly and weirdly concluded it was a suicide -- and when she was brutally strangled in her own shoelace - her jacket zipped up with difficulty over the cord -- her body then tossed in the water -- the coroner found she did not drown - i.e. she was already dead from strangulation - and strangled dead bodies don't jump in the water by themselves. She had horrific injuries on her hands, someone else's DNA in her vagina, I'm understanding. The family had to fight to get the case reopened, and even then, not as a homicide, but "undetermined."

The Cal Anderson murder wasn't a mystery to be solved - that was the issue, tensor. Not homelessness. But you politicize everything and can't function in a conversation without having a designated "enemy." If it's not there, you'll make it up.


@133: "Does your reference to the murder in Cal Anderson mean that YOU don't care about the one in Green Lake?"

Why do you assume Autumn Lee Stone was murdered? There was no evidence of a struggle on her body, her body was found in full daylight, in a very public place with no one having heard sound of a struggle, and she'd recently endured a horrible series of events in her private life. ( And yet you assume she was raped and murdered. Those are your assumptions, nothing more. When confronted with actual murder in a park, you demand absolute silence:

@134: "The Cal Anderson murder wasn't a mystery to be solved - that was the issue, tensor. Not homelessness."

Nice dodge. The mystery there was why a known and violent criminal was allowed to camp in the park, and why his future victim was allowed to camp there. (Each had offers of housing outside of Seattle.) Why was anyone allowed to camp there? Has camping in Seattle's parks been shown to be a reliable path to stable, safe housing?

The dismal reality of Seattle's homeless encampments simply refuses to match your happy Potemkin Village version of it, and so you lash out in rage against anyone who dares care that actual murders have happened in the camps.


@135 Again, the issue I've raised and was discussing are murders and crimes against women that haven't been solved or effectively prosecuted because of DNA tests sitting around for years at the SPD. This issue was raised independent of the homelessness discussion. And you, tensor, do not define the parameters of the discussions.

I have repeatedly referenced issues for women living on the street - and apart from domestic violence - which is specific to the Cal Anderson case - and also pertinent to the Greenlake case which is probably unrelated to homelessness.

Your idea of "assumptions" -- extremely bizarre -- given key facts I provided in my prior post on the Greenlake case, including my reference to multiple criminal and forensic authorities convinced she was murdered. If you're so sure of yourself, and you care so much about women being murdered, and in public parks, then stop obsessively covering Durkan's ass and tell her administration to have the DNA analyzed - then, maybe, we can find out what really happened. Or is that what your/their problem actually is?

The fact that the perpetrator in the Cal Anderson case committed suicide (so) can't be prosecuted shouldn't be an excuse for you to politicize the case (and) prosecute the entire homeless community with your perverse and obsessive desire to drive them all out of any possible public place for them to stay - and thereby force them into the shadows or whatever bone you decide you'll finally toss them by way of "housing," or to oppress them with the state - or deprive them of their liberties and rights.

I've been very reasonable throughout my posts. I've repeatedly stated, if you want homeless people out of the parks at night, then support some viable options for housing which they would choose of their own free will. I've discussed a number of those options - but you're so hatefully politicized, you can't stand the idea of agreeing with me on anything?

For example, I said like the Housing First model. I even graciously reached out - when you posted that you did - but you were incapable of responding in kind. This is hatred and rage on your part, tensor. Not mine.

I also said (on the subject of tiny houses - about which you indicated great dislike) - I supported them only to a certain extent, not as some grand solution, but because rational people work with people, tensor. Just because Sawant likes it, and she's a self-described socialist, doesn't mean it's bad. There are capitalists who like the tiny house model, too, if it makes you feel any better. But I, myself, am not really a fan - it's just better than shelters and better than nothing. People can go in a room and close and lock a door. Some campers say they'd be willing to give it a try; others, I'm guessing, might even prefer camping. But if it reportedly works for some people, helping them climb out of poverty and homelessness; so, why would you be so vehemently opposed?

Getting back to the gist of MY position that I've stated repeatedly. I said "I" support providing, minimally, hotel rooms with individual bathrooms - as Constantine implemented to some extent (by buying up some hotels) - and his version is reportedly based on the Housing First model. That means, to my understanding, each person probably gets a social worker to help them navigate any state systems they might need (or not). I expressed support for his record there, albeit late-in-coming, and far too few rooms - given the numbers of homeless people. Otherwise, clearly people need real apartments.

I have also expressed big reservations about shelters - which so many homeless people reportedly do NOT want to go to - and understandably, given the issues there. So I oppose to flushing anymore tax payer money down the drain to fund such structures vs real apartments or hotel rooms with individual bathrooms. You once posted you'd like to see the money going into real housing - not a lot of state bureaucracy. I agree with this position. So what is your big problem, here, then?

Where we part ways on homelessness, as far as I can see, besides your total opposition to tiny homes - simply because you hate Sawant and her and Durkan had a big fight - is that I don't believe in forcing people who haven't committed violent or dangerous felonies to go to into any form of housing against their will. Being homeless is not a crime nor does it make you a criminal. You have the same rights and freedoms as any other American. Meaning you can also hang out in the park. And the parks, IMV, should be open anyway, 24/7 with round-the-clock maintenance. Which I also posted about with a reference to other cities. And if people want to pitch a tent to lie down in - which housed people also do in parks - which you may not know because you never go to parks yourself - I don't have a problem with that either.

Also, another fact-check for your twisted mind: they don't have homeless people living in parks in socialist countries (as you suggest with your dumbly repetitive "happy Potempkin village" references - which are not a substantive arguments). So living in parks is not a "socialist experiment," but a reality/consequence of failed capitalist economies. I have yet to see one that has solved this issue while respecting the individual rights and freedoms of the people affected most - not you, tensor, but the homeless. You would forgo these later democratic priorities - individual rights and freedoms - while I would not. I would work with what people in these situations truly want and need as interventions - not impose my ideas as to what's best - and as you apparently would, without having any experience even walking in parks, apparently. So again, I think this is your projection.

Furthermore, I am willing to work with people of any political label - focusing on the issues, not labels -- you apparently would not, even at the cost of sabotaging what you say you support. For example, you had an ally in me on Housing First. But you reject that partnership altogether because I've expressed support for some of Sawant's positions -- I also opposed the recall - and I've also criticized Durkan's record. When you politicize, as you do, you're not capable of real discussions on the issues. You just target and attack, even if you burn up your own ship.

Tangent: you reference a prior criminal record in this Cal Anderson case. Well, maybe this couple was living in a park because they couldn't get housing "because" of his criminal record. It would certainly make it more challenging. And why was she still living with him, herself? The biggest reason, per shelter specialists, is the money to leave. It's one of the reasons, I personally support a liveable universal basic income (and coupled with single payer so that the insurance companies don't just pluck it up). So women in these situations can walk out.

I can't really continue to discuss a subject with a poster who repeatedly refuses to hear and recognize what the other poster's position actually is. It's like having a conversation with a person who's having a conversation with themselves - whoever they imagine you to be, rather than what you actually write. Other posters have said the same thing about you, tensor. At what point, when people tell you this over and over, do you take a look in the mirror and decide that maybe they have a point - and maybe you should actually listen/read what others are actually saying.


@137 Addendum, tensor, and on your comments regarding the Greenlake case. She "did" have signs of struggle on her body - which I already described. Also - this type of strangulation can kill someone very rapidly, so they wouldn't have a lot of opportunity for "struggle." The personal issues in her life rather point to various suspects and motives, means and opportunity; her state-of-mind was not suicidal, and according to a substantial pool of friends, family and criminal experts.


@138 Also, Self-strangulation is extremely rare. Coupled with everything else in this case (which I already provided an oversight ITO facts), it just added to the absurdity of these rapid fire conclusions. NTM their suggestion that her prayer journal entry about how much she loved her children (which I also read) was a "suicide note." Shame on the decision-makers in this case.


@137: " Again, the issue I've raised and was discussing are murders and crimes against women..."

You are assuming Autumn Lee Stone was murdered. The evidence does not support that assumption. Contrary to your unsupported claims here, we have:

'Autumn was fully clothed except for her shoes, which investigators found without laces some distance apart in the bushes near where she was pulled ashore. Police saw no sign of a struggle and concluded she had no “defensive injuries.”'

'Autumn Stone’s death is among this small number, where the official ruling on how she died is “undetermined.”'

'Garcia saw no signs of a struggle or marks of a body being dragged. [...] A forensic pathologist who examined her said he saw no injuries to her hands after cleaning them of debris.

'For the detective, the body was the “main piece of evidence” and the story written there bore no traces of homicide.

“I gotta tell you,” he later told Autumn’s mother. “We completely and literally have zero homicidal marks that we look for, nothing that indicates homicide.”'

'“In this case, there is not sufficient evidence for KCMEO (King County Medical Examiner’s Office) to conclude either suicide or homicide as the manner of death,” a county spokesman said, declining further comment.'

(All quotes from the url I provided @135.)

As for your harping on the supposed DNA evidence:

"By early May, the crime lab had an answer: There was no semen or male DNA at all on the swabs."

This is not strange. In keeping with Mother Nature's "survival of the fittest" idea, the female reproductive tract is a witheringly harsh environment for sperm. Any sperm which may have been present in her body might have been deteriorating there for days, and the longer it was there, the less of a chance it belonged to any possible assailant. The supposed DNA evidence upon which you rely simply has not been shown to exist -- let alone to provide sole support to a charge of murder, even if eventually found to exist.

By contrast, we have no doubt as to how Lisa Vach died, who killed her, or why the crime took place: we allowed a known and violent criminal to camp in Cal Anderson Park, and we allowed Lisa Vach to camp in Cal Anderson Park. Each had offers of housing outside of Seattle, in Texas and Tacoma, respectively. Had we relentlessly swept every encampment, every time, they might well have accepted those offers. Even if they had not, their chances of staying together long enough for Berge to kill Vach would have been greatly reduced. Our policy of not sweeping encampments, of not enforcing our laws, was thus a fatal failure -- both legally and ethically.

If you want to talk about preventable violence against women, you might want to start by advocating we sweep every encampment, every time.


@139 In the Greenlake case, some human background, without which, any investigation is worthless. The victim, Autumn Lee Stone, was a lovely young woman with two children, the second child born only within two weeks (was it?) of her murder. She grew up in the Seattle area. She reportedly had a good relationship with the father of her first child (F1), a little boy (still a minor). The parents split up some years back but seemed to remain friends, and as they shared custody.

If I recall correctly, she worked as a barrister (at some point) at a cafe where both the future father of her 2nd child (F2) and another friend of hers was employed. Autumn and F2 knew each a little from back in high school, I think it was. So there was a connection and trust there, from the outset.

Anyway, they started seeing each other, fell in love, got engaged, got pregnant, were planning a wedding, and, they were living in her father and stepmother's house in Everett - on their part, helping the young couple get a foot up in life and save for their own place. They also had a good relationship with Autumn's mother, who's in a picture with Autumn and her fiance at the hospital or back at home after her 2nd baby was born - and F2 is holding the baby like he's feeling great about things.

One day, not long after the baby was born, Autumn stepped out to run to the store, leaving the infant with the father - and her own father and stepmother also in the house somewhere. She wasn't gone long, but she returned to a shocking and horrible scene where they were all there, and trying to revive the baby.

F2 allegedly shook or harmed the baby in frustration (the baby was crying and wouldn't stop) - the baby was seriously injured. Last I read, probably permanently disabled.

Anyway, it turned out F2 had a criminal record that he never told Autumn about, or the incident in question for which he was convicted. He had served time in prison for doing the same thing to a prior infant from a prior relationship with another woman. He had never told Autumn about them, either. He had further been forbidden (by the court, and some years prior) any contact with the first child until that the child was/is grown up. (The 1st child was also permanently disabled as a result of the injuries and is still a minor. Autumn's father and stepmother now have custody of Autumn's second child.)

Going back to the story though: everyone freaked, as you can imagine - Autumn ended the relationship with F2, he was "evicted" from the house, the locks were changed, the state stepped in - initially taking custody of the newborn infant from everyone while they tried to sort everything out.

The State also took away Autumn's shared custody with the first child, F1 expressing his reluctance with this step - i.e. he had no problems with Autumn's ability as a parent, but his agreement with the State enabled him to hold on to his custody - and - instead of having a social worker supervise her visits, she could come over with just F1 being there. Is the gist, I think.

Autumn cooperated with the state and the police, her family was very supportive during this brief period - which, I think, people saw as temporary since she had ended the relationship and she herself was otherwise not a danger to her children - though her relationship with him could pose such a threat. But .. some believe Autumn wanted to move faster on getting back custody of both of her children than her family probably thought was advisable. Or .. she might not have been that "done" yet with F2.

On the day of her murder - or the day before (I forget) - she spoke with a close friend. She was planning to drive down from Everett to spend the day at Greenlake to clear her head and do some self-care. She was going to get a pedicure and walk around the lake, and later on, head over to F1's home for a visit with her first child. Her mother knew about it, her stepmother and father knew about it, too.

But ... when she spoke with her girlfriend about it, she indicated that something else could be going on, too .. she couldn't tell her friend fully about it yet - "there are legal issues" - and that she hadn't told her family about it -- but -- she was "going to get some answers." Her friend described her as sounding determined (not suicidal) - like she had moved into a sorta "Mama Bear" fighting mode - she expressed her firm intent to get back custody of her children. And she was upbeat, but her friend also felt a little trepidation about whatever it was Autumn was planning, so she expressed concern for Autumn's safety and asked her to please be careful.

Autumn drove to Green Lake, parked at the north end by the rec hall/swimming pool, texted from her car with her stepmother, spoke in person with her mother on the phone -- both exchanges, supportive, with the two women describing Autumn herself as being in a positive and constructive state of mind as far as taking care of herself and various issues with the state and meetings and appointments that were going on. The stepmother shared the texts and time stamps with the public.

Autumn also texted at some point with F1, confirming their visit later on, but he did not share his texts or the exact time stamps.

The Seattle Times seems to assume she set out around the park in a western direction, but it is not clear how they made this determination. If she went west, she would have shown up on the north boat house web cam. But as another laxity in this investigation - or the reporting, we don't even know if the SPD checked these various cameras around the lake. But - if she headed west, it seems likely she never even reached the west side of the lake - which was less densely populated (at least, when I was there later), but still, things are very much in the open.

Her body was found in the water (by a boater) in the general vicinity of Duck Island. She was pulled ashore by the authorities on the little beach (near this long dock that faces out towards Duck Island - which is a bird sanctuary) - and where skateboarders were wading out when they secretly built a skateboard park there that the city later dismantled, restoring the bird habitat.

So, yes, you can wade there. There are photographs and videos of people wading to Duck Island, shoes and skateboards under their arms, reporters demonstrating on camera as much themselves. And yes, the island is off-limits, with or without a skateboard park, but youtubers have shared their experiences going over "to this cool little spot," regardless. Does that surprise anyone?

I imagine anyone growing up in this area, as Autumn and F2 did, could well have known about it too. Young people love this kind of stuff. Someone should go ask her sister if Autumn knew about it. But that would be a real, not fake, investigation.

Also, the police reportedly never even went over to look around Duck Island. To see if there was any evidence. But - if people wonder how this could have happened in broad daylight, in a busy populated park with most everything out in the open - Duck Island is definitely a place it could have happened without anyone being the wiser. So I definitely think this is one of the more plausible theories. BUT - I'm betting -- if Autumn Lee Stone went to Duck Island, she would not have waded out by herself. She had a companion with her. And -- she would not have planned it, because her socks were still on like impromptu wading shoes, and with someone she might have felt self-conscious with, ITO of her toenails.

(They don't say, but I don't believe she'd had a pedicure yet. But this was a young lady who liked her pedicures and her nails. She was probably a little self-conscious about her bare feet if she hadn't had a pedicure for a bit.)

Anyway, her shoes were in the bushes at this little beach past the long dock, and where people can wade to or from Duck Island - the shoes, seemingly flung in different directions -- and each separately - so, by someone else. The laces were not on either shoe. One camera showed a lace lying on the beach itself. She was strangled with one shoe lace - which some of the articles - like the one tensor linked - do not state accurately. She was not found strangled with both laces - just one -- per one police account plus her father on video emphasizing the singular - and though both were removed from her shoes. And again, her body was recovered with both of her socks on her feet.

A little back-tracking .. apparently, prior to this day, F2 and his mother had seen Autumn from a distance when they were going in for one of these meetings with the police or the state. At that time, F2 expressed his desire to his mother to go up to Autumn - and speak with her. He missed her, is what it sounded like in the police report, and the police officer, later, during another (and filmed interview) with F2, expressed concern that the couple might have had a secret meeting - and F2 denied it. But, in any case, per the report on this other occasion, his mother strongly advised him that this was a bad idea under the circumstances, and they didn't.

Back to the day of the murder. So there are some views (which also occurred to the police) that she might have made a secret date with F2 to "get some answers." She wanted a conversation about everything that had happened. Maybe she was still in some degree of denial about everything, maybe she missed him despite what he had done to their child. Human beings can have a mixture of feelings you don't necessarily just turn off like a faucet, right? And of course, meeting with F2 would be something her family wouldn't have approved of - and would have involved legal issues, as she implied to her girlfriend. So, in this version of events, the ex-lovers meet, go to Duck Island, perhaps even have consensual relations there (hence, DNA) - then, as she confronts him, he becomes enraged and kills her. By his own admission to the police regarding the infants, he "has a problem with anger."

But ... guess what? F2 had an alibi. He was moving into his mother and stepfather's house in Bothell (I believe it was), with some young siblings there, playing video games all day. He also does not have a driver's license or a car. (Keep in mind, though, people do drive without licenses, and other people's cars, and he's probably quite fluent in the bus system.)

F2's story was confirmed, though, by his mother. Her son was there with her. Whether he was in his room all day is another question - but it doesn't sound like the police really pushed here. Mother and son went in for a meeting with an investigator, they were cooperative, so he had no reason to question what they told him. Is what the police report sounded like. And I don't think they bothered checking bus line security footage either, or looked into the possibility of his access to someone else's vehicle. Then it's also possible his mother just lied.

Ok, but let's say, for the sake of argument, F2's alibi swings. Here's another theory: F2 had a "friend" who was also a mutual friend of the couple. And, like F2, there were things about this friend Autumn didn't know about either. For example, F2 and him met up in prison, the "friend" was/is a member of violent gang, and a flaming psychopath. And he has all kinds of misogynistic ideas and imaginings in his head about Autumn.

Also, consider this: rape and shoelace strangulation are tactics known to be employed by some gang members. There is a well-known case in which this happened to two young women who were brutally raped and strangled by gang members with their own shoe laces. And prison can be a great place to meet and "bond" with people like this. Furthermore, some of these more dangerously violent gangs (not all gangs are like this, of course) are now in the Seattle area, per more recent SPD reports.

So, in this version, Autumn is meeting up with a friend of F2 to "get some answers." Same general dock area. She's gonna try to get some information of out of his buddy about F2 and what's going on. Maybe even exchange some messages. She has no idea the kind of person she's dealing with. Maybe she "is" a little nervous even (about this guy) - but she's also feeling brave - Mr. Psychopath is pretty sharp with people's vulnerabilities in some ways. So he easily manipulates Autumn to casually wade over to Duck Island as they "talk" - where everything happens, Autumn suddenly discovering what he's all about.

Another theory: F1 is a lot more concerned about his child with Autumn than meets the eye; i.e. now that he knows her latest partner almost killed her second child. What could this individual maybe do to his own son, and if Autumn hasn't really been able to sever the ties and move on with her life? So, in this story (which IMV is the less likely than the first 2, but nevertheless classic Colombo...) we don't have a full account of what his relationship with Autumn was really about. Maybe he's a real control freak - after all, he wouldn't even share the texts or the specific time stamp of their communications. That's a little uncooperative I'd say. That's a little bit of a red flag. Maybe the answers Autumn was going to get concerned custody of her first son. But the news stories didn't even report on whether or not F1 had an alibi. And .. he reportedly lived fairly close to Greenlake, and he certainly had a plausible motive, if not the means.

I don't discount the possibility she was grabbed by a random person either. But no one has identified a place where this could have happened while escaping the notice of other park goers, and on that busy, beautiful day. Possibly the west side, but it doesn't sound like she got that far (per the Seattle Times and wherever they got their information) - and since her shoes were found in this lawn/dock/beach area - and with the big open field.

And -- while she could have been rapidly strangled if the person knew what they were doing (such as a serial killer or a gang member) - she would have also been raped (the DNA) - and the killer also "prepped" the body for disposal. He ritualistically, and with difficulty, zipped up her jacket over the cord and then, he had to spend some time putting her corpse out in the open water. And her body was found, to my understanding, closer to this island rather than the shore. I mean, all of these things take time - and involve the risk of being noticed. And I don't think she would have waded out to this island by herself.

All things considered, Autumn Lee Stone likely knew her killer - who she met up with that day, determined "to get answers."


mister tensor:

the family brought in an outside investigator. people from the San Diego police have even gotten involved. the DNA evidence is quite real; furthermore, they have photographs of horrific injuries to her hands. First responders who pulled her body from the water and removed the cord say it's absurd to say she wasn't murdered. And, as I already stated, but you never comprehensively read the posts you react to, murder by strangulation can take place rather rapidly so it doesn't necessarily give the victim much opportunity to struggle.

i recommend, for all your convictions, you read more than one brief article; try the more extensive piece by the Seattle Times, for starters; and try to analyze a situation apart from whatever you've decided in advance will be the position you take, and simply because it is in opposition to whoever you perceive your mortal enemies as being.

for i've concluded you will just oppose whatever i say, regardless of rationale. so conversation with you about anything is useless.

have fun in your bitter stew, whatever happened to you in your obviously quite painful life.


@142: I point out you've made unjustified assumptions, and you respond will full-out, obsessively-detailed fantasies. That's amazing, but at least it fits your idea about facts: if you just repeat something often enough, it just magically becomes true.

Which means that it can just as magically become untrue: "...perhaps even have consensual relations there..." So, was she raped, or was it consensual? How about you have it out with @126, and let us know who wins? (Good luck with that, he can be quite the annoyance...)

Still nothing about a woman who was actually murdered, in a Seattle park, by her partner, though. Who cares about her?


@144 You "assume" I'm "responding" to you. I explicitly did not address you in that post because I understand (at this juncture) you have no interest in a conversation with other humans.. So who has the "fantasies?"

My post was (and still is) to the community-at-large, whether or not they choose to respond.
And as I already said they were "theories" that people were discussing.

If you read around on the internet, tensor, NO ONE posting shares your weak, uninformed and submissive "fantasies" about this case. Everyone stands with the family of the victim. Unlike yourself, and refreshing in this day and age, most are not given to the notion of superiority to the very facts themselves - and simply because someone in authority "said so." Clearly you have no common sense - and are fully out-of-touch with reality -- if you think a young woman - already dead via strangulation - could zip up her jacket and throw her own body into the water. And after having been involved with a partner who hid a criminal record and a history of domestic violence? And had gone out, presumably to meet with someone, in order to "get answers?"

"Still nothing about a woman who was actually murdered"

More of your "fantasies" eh. I posted at length - in that case, truly in response to your post. And again, in that case, they know who the killer was, and he committed suicide - so there's no one to prosecute. Case truly closed. Though of course people care about it. Unlike yourself, they just don't seek to politicize the case, and exploit the family's pain and suffering, in order to self-servingly persecute poor people who had nothing to do with it, and are living hard enough lives of their own.

So there's my opinion of YOU.


addendum @145 (and NOT to tensor)

Even the suspects, BTW, in the various theories assert that she was murdered (not by themselves, of course). Which also lends a little weight to the view that it may have been a "friend" of one.


O.K., I'll bite:

Per prior discussion on "encampment standards" - from today's news (there's a piece, too, in the ST but I used up my freebies - which, BTW, applies to their campaign endorsements, LOL, I guess I won't be able to read the argument for Dow Constantine) -

"King County Council Discusses Policy For Removal of Homeless Encampments"

I think one problem here is, there's no individual focus. Making it look like they're using the behavior of one person as a flimsy excuse to throw out the entire group. And especially when they're talking about mass shelters, not having sufficient hotel rooms or apartments as viable options.

If you have the situation at the overpass, IMV, the Sheriff has a "possibly" legit argument that they need to secure the area because of the freeway. Though obviously the individuals in question weren't throwing things from the encampment itself (and most campers had nothing to do with this behavior) - and - this went on for months endangering motorists without "those" areas being secured, and instead.

But if you have, say, a person "cooking meth" in a camp, as posted earlier, I think you have another criminal issue - at the outset - and ITO that person only. So you don't evict everyone else, you have that individual arrested and processed through the court system where they would be housed in involuntary rehab, thereby not threatening anyone's living situation with the possibility of fire or explosions (the rehab can control their access to these dangerous products and their ability to use them).

Litter and garbage around another person's tent? Those individuals alone should be given a warning with very specific guidelines. And frankly, I don't care if the shelter is their only other option. Get your garbage in the garbage.

But I don't otherwise agree with forcing people out involuntarily if they aren't creating a nuisance for others, or engaging in criminal activity dangerous to the health and safety of others. I "do" agree with offering people viable options like hotel rooms or apartments - which I think most campers would accept, of their own free will, if given that chance. But if they're just offering people beds in a mass shelter, and expecting them to take that instead, I think it's bullshit. These shelters are awful, and I can understand why they'd rather "go camping."

Furthermore, I've stated this before - but I'll state it again. They should EXPAND access to parks. Keep them open 24/7 with increased maintenance, like other cities are doing (I shared a link) - and probably use some of that cushy police budget to send a couple of foot or bike cops through at night as a general deterrent. Not to harass people, just to help keep things quiet.

Opening parks at night, too, will bring in other residents - helping the nightlife of cities and areas in King County, and helping to keep the areas safe.

And lastly, if these photos don't scream "rent control" to Washington State, I don't know what will.

In the meantime, get more hotels and apartments to offer people, along with social workers, if needed, to help people navigate the grotesque bureaucracy that is our messy, oppressive and wasteful social service system, including job placement, health care and real apartments. (As reportedly in the Housing First model with no-strings attached to holding on to the housing permanently, if needed.)

But please, people, stop building more bureaucratic and demoralizing mass shelters and stop thinking they're a solution - or even a band aid.


I got a chance to read this glowing recommendation from the ST before the freebies ran out. I'm sure the Stranger endorses it (because it's politically correct). BUT I don't care about political correctness and I am an undecided voter. So convince me more:

This was swaying me considerably UNTIL they mentioned how much the increase actually is -- and when I read some of the comments pointing out that the ST has actually printed an opinion piece in total opposition (which they themselves seem to have forgotten - they claim no one is against this - and I will get around to reading that when my freebies kick in again).

If I may be so bold - how much will this affect people's RENT? Does the measure protect renters from such increases?

Maybe you should otherwise come back after rent control - and for ALL kinds of rental agreements has passed.

Like public transportation, I love seeing stuff like this for kids etc (homeless prevention is in there, too) funded. But yes, ya'all have a extremely poor record in handling monies (granted, the ST argues this is one area where you've handled it well), but, given what we pay already in taxes (and compared to people like Jeff Bezos), I think you need to go after the wealthy for these monies - not just for your campaign to get passed - and so that WE pay INSTEAD of the ones funding your campaign.

But I do admit, you're advancing a better argument than the one for the obscene car tab fees for badly needed public transportation money (which I posted about earlier).


@147: The blithely callous attitude toward actual human life from our self-appointed Compassion Brigade is always on display, though not always as obvious as it is here:

'Though obviously the individuals in question weren't throwing things from the encampment itself (and most campers had nothing to do with this behavior) - and - this went on for months endangering motorists without "those" areas being secured, and instead.'

Homeless campers went to the nearby freeway and threw stuff at moving vehicles. And you still can't admit the encampment itself is therefore a public-safety hazard, which must be cleared. How exactly, are we to separate the campers who endanger human lives from the campers who merely tolerate this endangerment? We can't, which is why the entire encampment must be swept.

"So you don't evict everyone else, you have that individual arrested and processed through the court system where they would be housed in involuntary rehab,"

Travis Berge was AWOL from his mandatory rehab' when he beat Lisa Vach. He was AWOL from his mandatory rehab' when he publicly bragged about having beaten Lisa Vach. He was AWOL from his mandatory rehab' when he strangled Lisa Vach and left her to die. So, any hope of your idea working died with Lisa Vach -- or maybe with Travis Berge, when he was overcome by fumes and drowned whilst fleeing police for his having killed Lisa Vach. (He did not commit suicide, as you have repeatedly and wrongly stated.)

What, exactly, is/are the benefit(s) Seattle's residents, housed and otherwise, derive from people camping in Seattle's parks? How do these benefits justify the beatings and death of Lisa Vach? Go ahead, describe to us how illegal encampments justify the public-health issues they create for both their inhabitants, and for everyone else in Seattle. If you can't, then we should enforce our laws against camping. We cannot save Lisa Vach -- although we easily could have -- but we can save the next person who could have been housed elsewhere, had he or she not been so wonderfully comfortable camping in our parks.


@145: You never told us if Autumn Stone was raped or not. When you first dumped that off-topic matter on this thread, she was raped, it was horrible, somehow Mayor Durkan was at fault, etc. Then, suddenly, the sex Ms. Stone had at Green Lake that day (for which there is no evidence of any kind, BTW) might have been consensual. So, was she raped, or wasn't she? Is this a shining example of what George Orwell called "doublethink," where you simultaneously believe she certainly was -- and, absolutely was not -- raped?

'And had gone out, presumably to meet with someone, in order to "get answers?"'

There you go again with the unwarranted presumption. There is no evidence she intended to meet anyone at Green Lake. We have evidence showing what she actually did after she arrived there: she wrote a prayer. Perhaps she intended to "get answers" via prayer? If the answer (or lack thereof) she believed she received, combined with the many painful events of her very recent life, caused her to commit suicide, then everything fits, no further explanations required.

(As for the issue of her having the vest zipped up, yes, strangulation can be quick. But it need not be; Lisa Vach was still alive when Travis Berge stopped his final assault upon her. We cannot assume Autumn Stone's death was quick, and if it was not, then she had time to close the zipper completely before she lost consciousness.)


Heads up, Readers-At-Large:

Bernie Sanders has joined Rep Pramila Jayapal in endorsing Lorena González and Teresa Mosqueda!

Pass it on!


@152 And get your ballots in!

(It's already the 29th and Aug 3rd is upon us!)


@145: "...If you read around on the internet, tensor, NO ONE posting ..."

So, criminal cases should be decided by posts on the internet? If you ever yourself go on trial, will you waive your jury rights and go straight to a vote of internet postings? (Please, please say you will..)

The first responder saw no signs of a struggle on her corpse. The police detective flatly said there was no sign of homicide. The medical examiner found no damage on her hands. No one at a popular park, in the middle of a sunny day, heard or saw any hint of a struggle. There is no evidence she met or touched any other human being at Green Lake. There is no evidence of her having had sex on the day she died, let alone that she was raped. (That she was, in fact, fully -- and even overly! -- dressed for that day implies she probably wasn't raped.)

All we do know is a young woman, physically alone, praying by herself after an unexpected series of tragic events devastated her entire life, wound up floating in Green Lake with her own shoelaces around her neck. Suicide is simply not a possibility to be ruled out by questionable assumptions or other wishful thinking, no matter how much her family wants her back -- or how obsessively posters on the internet fixate on her youth and looks.


@156 - we could at least start by admitting the “campers”, in general, are not great neighbors?

Even at the courthouse, a lovely homeless sex offender attempted to rape a woman just today. Then there’s the 80*+ day warming fire that torched a picnic structure at green lake…awesome.

These crap stranger endorsements just cheer this BS on.


I have chronic Hepatitis B which lead to Liver cirrhosis I was told there was no cure and was recommended to use lamivudine (Epivir) medication which was not a complete cure for the virus and leads to Hair loss and kidney problem. I came across Doctor Nelson Ads on this blog site with series of testimonies from his previous patients who have been cured from Hepatitis B, Erectile Dysfunction, Kidney diseases etc .. I placed an order for his product which I received at my address via dhl service within 4 days, and with his instructions I used the product for 21 days. The first week I discovered huge difference on my health, and when I went for another tests my result was negative with no trace of the virus on my blood. I recommend Dr. Nelson to anyone with Kidney Stone, Breast Cancer, Heart Disease, fibrosis, herpes virus, erectile dysfunction, prostate cancer, low sperm, lung cancer. Information; WhatsApp +212703835488


@156: It was a pretty good thread. Ridding it of Ivy in a mere twenty minutes was a nice bonus; she rarely cleans up that quickly or easily.

But yes, watching the mask slowly slip from Jay Bird, to reveal the unsmiling visage of a Socialist Alternative apparatchik, was my favorite aspect.


I never knew that an online Steller’s jay could be louder and more annoying than the real deal.


Look at the state of Seattle. The Seattle performative progressive project has been an epic failure. Throw these clowns out and use The Stranger cheat sheet as a list of who not to vote for.


Enough. Fuck all this. We need to clean up the city. Give help to the people that need it, substance, etc. and deal with the rest. Whatever. How should I put this. If you can’t afford something, you don’t buy it, right? Same with a city. Can’t afford it? That’s ok. There’s other places that are priced differently. The economy decides the value, not yuppies, tech bros, etc. if a crash happens and the tech picks up and leaves, prices will drop. It’s how it goes. Meanwhile. Enforce the law and get more cops on the street, doing their job right. Sure, oversee all you want, but for the love of Christ, when you’re getting employees of the courthouse attacked and sexually assaulted in the court bathroom, I’d say, as a city, we should be done with this shit. Time to vote for for the people that will actually do something about this.


@164 So ... SPD is blackmailing the city in order to force voters to choose the candidates "they" like - and in order to do a job they're supposed to do irrespective of voters' elected choices? Sorry, but that's not what democracy looks like. That's organized crime.


@161 Get ready to be annoyed a whole lot more, Sockpuppet.


@160 Hey dick brain, have you noticed how no one except your far right-wing sock puppets talk to you anymore? Do you honestly think anyone in Seattle is reading the garbage you've been posting 24/7 at The Stranger, and for years on end? How sad, you alone in your bathtub of hallucinations and projected hate, and your sorry ventriloquist act. What happened to you anyway, "tensor" ? The University of Washington wouldn't accept you into their physics program? Mommy and Daddy couldn't buy their stupid spoiled brat a ticket? So you went into their real estate instead? BTW - you know what you think about doing to yourself sometimes? Do everyone a favor and do it. Asshole.


My posts speak for themselves - no one else does, least of all a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth closet Nazi - rejected by the top public university in the country - who then decided to spend the rest of their miserable life haunting The Stranger forums with their hatred and contempt for the progressive city of Seattle. Up yours, dick brain.


How did I miss this?

"We also want an out queer back on the council. So there.

"Vote Oliver."

In 1991, Seattle's voters elected Sherry Harris to a City Council seat (all Council seats being at-large, back then) on the grounds she was an out queer black. She did such a miserable job of representing minorities (or anyone, really) that four years later, a local drag performer (I can't seem to recall his name after all this time -- Sam Bandage? Bam Sausage? San Davage? anyway...) appeared at a fund-raiser for Harris' opponent as "Scary Harris." Harris then became a one-term wonder.

So be careful what you wish for.


@165 WTF are you talking about??? SPD blackmailing the city? Have you lost your mind? How do you expect them anyone to do their job with this little community support? You keep talking about helping out EVERYONE ELSE, except the police. Do you understand what law enforcement means? A concept that is part of EVERY civilized society, since the beginning of time? Do you think the guy throwing a lime scooter at you from an overpass while you’re driving your kid to school will listen to your bullshit and just happily not do it? Do you think the guys that shot up 3rd ave last year would just listen to you and your theorizing about democracy? GTFOH you imbecile. As a taxpayer I want to see results. Whatever weak tea the Stranger is serving here will give us more of what we got already.


@170 You GTFOH.. SPD and the sheriff's dept has refused people's requests to address criminal issues in these areas - for years already. So who is responsible, AH. They are. The fact that you're covering up for their black mail just shows the criminal and fraudulent mindset you're part of, as well - along with the rest of your group of far-right thugs polluting these forum boards. Go screw yourself, dick-brain along with the rest of your Amazon paid posting whores. We're not intimidated by your garbage about "law and order." That's the last thing you care about and the people of Seattle see through your bullshit. We look forward to your departures from the city you all clearly hate.


@169 Yeah, like you're a voice for minorities and their "best representation." Go collect your posting paycheck, you pompous and presumptuous fraud. Take your puppet show with you.


@171 WTF are you talking about? What refusal, idiot? Does this ring a bell in that hollow head of yours? No? Do you have anything constructive to add?? No? Of course, you’re about as irrelevant as your ability to form a coherent sentence. Fine. Go back to spelunking in your mother’s cunt and let the adults take it from here. 🤣 See you at the ballot box freeloader.


@173 It's even been reported in the Seattle Times - a conservative newspaper. The fact that you're an illiterate moron isn't my responsibility.


@175 illiterate, lying moron for the far right.


@174: "What we refer to as policing — a publicly funded body of enforcement and investigation for criminal violations— is really less than 300 years old. "

Oh, please. Caesar Augustus founded Rome's public fire-fighting service, to which he later added policing duties ("Vigiles Urbani"). New Yorkers had an organized, public, paid police force before they even became New Yorkers, as such a system had existed in New Amsterdam.

"Then of course modern policing in America evolved directly from the slave patrols. That’s why America is one of the few (maybe the only) modern wealthy democracies where law enforcement shoots fleeing unarmed suspects."

From the founding of the Republic through to the Civil War, northern states forbade their police forces from enforcing laws regarding runaway slaves.

(Your choice of Dark Age England an example of "civilized society" explains a lot more than just your factual errors in this comment; in fact, it completely explains your entire mode of discourse in these commentary threads.)


@178: You were responding to @170, so I responded in that context. I don't care what weasel words you now use in your silly attempt to justify your misleading answer. @170 referred only to basic, on-the-street policing functions, not investigation or prosecution; you added all of that finery you're now citing.

Of course some one would bring up ancient Rome. Ancient Rome had an organized, public police force. Ancient Rome's legal system forms the basis of our laws and constitution. Roman citizens had legal rights, depending on class. None of that is true of Dark Age Britain. Romans considered Britain to be just another barbarous frontier, and they were completely justified in so doing. Your reliance on Britain as an example is misplaced, and renders your statements irrelevant.