Both sides are acting deplorable here. On one side, there's Murray throwing mud and attacking the credibility of the accusers. On the other, the lawyer has been nothing but a satire: from having a big grinning photo op with an inmate and a new accuser to bringing up obscure Pride party references.

Even if Murray had been acting like a gentleman since the accusations, I would never want to come forward if my lawyer was going to act like Lincoln Beauregard.

It's been very hard to watch.
No one is really happy with how allegations like this (which are often by nature, not provable) are handled by the legal system. If you believe in a standard of evidence, these allegations HAVE to be provable to some extent when it comes to legal action.

But simply put, allegations like these are basically the worst thing you can launch against someone, and if you are accused, and know you are innocent, are you just supposed to accept it? Since this is all He said/He said, what else can Murray really do but suggest his accusers can not be trusted?

For the sake of the argument, let's assume Murray is innocent. Should he just throw up his hands, give up on his lifetime career, and just go away forever just because allegations were made? That is extremely unfair, and I guarantee you that we don't want politics going down that road.

Don't like an elected official? Just hire someone to make a fake allegation. Problem solved!

Once again, not saying these are fake allegations, just offering a rhetorical argument.
Yes, when an accusation from someone with a criminal history that includes crimes of deception and dishonesty (e.g. identity theft) threatens to destroy your reputation, and your financial and personal life, you should just keep your trap shut for the sake of other "survivors".
“The way to respond to allegations like this is to respect the [legal] process and reaffirm that when survivors come forward they should be taken seriously,” Askini says.

This statement illustrates the logical disconnect displayed throughout the article: an assumption of guilt regardless of the very legal process being called for.
Every major issue in the city (homelessness, traffic, affordable housing, income equality) has gotten worse on this mayor's watch - why is anyone defending him at this point? Fuck his lip service, look at the reality. He's a loser!
Good hard work and writing there Heidi!
Murray has shown himself to be a very callous individual. He refuses to meet with homeless representatives when they have asked to meet with him. He has stepped up evictions (sweeps) of homeless campsites without providing decent alternatives for them while their belongings and important Identification is thrown away. This should tell us something.
But he has an open door policy for developers and Paul Allen etc.
"There’s the flip of this. Maybe it’s painful to people who are falsely accused. What’s the evidence of that? How painful is it to be accused of something you never did?"

Oh gosh. Heekin sounds like some commenters here.
Why aren't citizens and the media demanding he give a press conference where he can be questioned about every allegation, rumor and detail? Think Chris Christie.. he held a press conference during Bridgegate, it lasted almost 2 hours and answered every single question. He was never indicted although others around him were. He was unabashed about telling his side of the story. All Ed Murray does is whine about a right wing conspiracy. Why would right wingers want to spend time trying to deny him a second term? Wouldn't they have gone after him in the last election? The way he presents himself; petulant, defensive, whiny and accusatory is repulsive. If I was falsely accused of child rape I would be screaming from the rafters that I was innocent. Also I do not believe Murray was a public defender. He does not have a law degree.
@10 Anything Murray personally says about this case or any related case can be used to challenge his honesty under cross examination should he need to testify about the facts at some future time and describes even the most seemingly inconsequential fact differently. He is likely wise to listen to his attorney and not talk about it.

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

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

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

On the flip side, because of the political nature of the milieu of the case, and the predictability of Murray responding in exactly the way he has, it isn't strange at all that Lincoln Beauregard would choose a very outgoing public strategy to try to preemptively humanize his client AND any previous accusers. Anyone who thinks otherwise should raise their head and look around. The "Reality Show" approach is currently in the ascendancy in politics and law - the public expects it and will be inclined to punish you if you can't deliver.
@10 Yes, indeed. Saying Murray "cut his teeth working as a public defender in Portland" certainly is a weird false fact to include for a reporter. Apparently, he was a junior office worker for the public defenders office in Portland for a short time as his first job out of college ( BA in Sociology). But I don't think the definition of "public defender" has changed from meaning an attorney who works as a public defender to meaning anyone at all who works as support staff for public defense attorneys.
"No, you counter sue and make sure your name is cleared. Mayor, are you going to counter sue? Oh, not now, I got to work on it for a while."

They are indeed working on it. They've already had one of the accusers' attorneys fined for improper conduct, and they are asking for a ruling on Rule 11. If the latter goes in their favor, the lawsuit disappears, and Murray has a great opportunity for a counter-suit against an anti-gay bigot (Connelly) who has deep pockets.
"Why aren't citizens and the media demanding he give a press conference where he can be questioned about every allegation, rumor and detail?"

Because other than the chattering political class, nobody cares. Accusations made without evidence can -- and have -- been dismissed without evidence.

"Think Chris Christie.. he held a press conference during Bridgegate, it lasted almost 2 hours and answered every single question. "

Bridgegate was a real policy matter which affected real taxpayers. This lawsuit is a frivolous piece of garbage with no evidence to support it.

"Why would right wingers want to spend time trying to deny him a second term?"

Because anti-gay bigots oppose gay politicians who support gay rights.

"The way he presents himself; petulant, defensive, whiny and accusatory is repulsive."

*You're* accusing someone else of being "petulant" and "whiny"? My popcorn budget just saw a huge increase. But you could cause it to rise further still; please feel free to move to New Jersey, and send us endless postings about how clean and free of corruption the local politics are there.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.