Mayor of Seattle a child rapist? (Republic, Clinton: high school, gated, vs.)

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

He's outside the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution, so the guy's already going to walk for it.

But I mean, the fact that this latest guy can accurately describe what are apparently telling features about Murray's junk.....not exactly something you just come up with in a Google search.

Not sure about the statute of limitations...didn't child abuse by Catholic priest still get prosecuted years after the fact?

I heard the accuser even described a mole in a sensitive critical spot on Murray body....Whoops....

The liberal Seattle Times even told of two other men who described their encounters with Murray in the same way...sex for money. The story was kind of buried on the bottom of page eight however.

What I find offensive about the Times story, printed on April 8th, was the last line...quote: We don't take these decisions lightly, and make them only after lengthy discussions. We know this is a disturbing story but we cannot shy away from important stories simply because they make us uncomfortable Unquote

Wow 'uncomfortable' just wow....sweeping under rug when the other two men accused Murray of sexually abuse back in 2008? Now I find that 'uncomfortable.

[pnwguy2]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

He's outside the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution, so the guy's already going to walk for it.

But I mean, the fact that this latest guy can accurately describe what are apparently telling features about Murray's junk.....not exactly something you just come up with in a Google search.



20 years ago, that was the big drug. Nowadays it's meth and heroin.

RE: Statute of limitations. Possibly true, but that isn't the point. The upcoming election is the point.

As for the younger man making the accusation, I understand he was a minor, but some might consider him partly responsbile for this, if true. A drug addict that was allegedly acting as a teen prostitute if these reports are true. I don't know how the law handles this kind of situation but I don't exactly feel sorry for the accuser. But if Murray did what he is accused of, he should definitely resign. This leads back to the statute of limitations...it is now only a matter of perception by the voters. Ugly situation in Seattle.

[Xanathos]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

RE: Statute of limitations. Possibly true, but that isn't the point. The upcoming election is the point.

As for the younger man making the accusation, I understand he was a minor, but some might consider him partly responsbile for this, if true. A drug addict that was allegedly acting as a teen prostitute if these reports are true. I don't know how the law handles this kind of situation but I don't exactly feel sorry for the accuser. But if Murray did what he is accused of, he should definitely resign. This leads back to the statute of limitations...it is now only a matter of perception by the voters. Ugly situation in Seattle.

If this gentleman is to be believed - and, at least on its face, he seems to have a lot of credibility - he states that there were multiple occasions where Murray took things further than he wanted them to go and ignored his requests to stop, though he stated he didn't try to fight strongly because he needed the money. Classic domination technique on the part of the person in the position of power. It doesn't matter if he was a manwhore - that's never OK, even in a business transaction for intimacy.


Not "possibly true" on statute of limitations - simply true. And the Times burying the last story 9 years ago is the epitome of dishonest journalism.

[pnwguy2]

Point taken. But there seems to be a lot of missing information here, and we will probably not ever know the entire truth. I agree there were earlier reports, but never reported. Why? Not sure. But my main point is that Murray's political future will be determined based on how voters perceive this episode. The statute is only "possible" because certain crimes can be held beyond the statutes. I don't think this case would be one of those IMO. I try to use words that allow for all outcomes.

[pnwguy2]

I would like to add that any minor, despite his/her history or place in life, should never be abused by someone of age. Obviously, these souls are vulnerable, and someone taking advantage of them is guilty. However, this scenerio is hard to prove, but again, the perception will be the end result when a public figure is involved. Murray is in deep s__t.

[Xanathos]

What's dumb is that it's going to take something like this to chase him out of office. He's an absolutely terrible mayor with no concept of how to run a city or a business, and even in an election year just blatantly proposes tax after tax after tax because he knows he'd normally win just because he's a Democrat, and that city doesn't know any better than to be anything but an automaton that votes a straight party ticket. Says a lot that you can make the last crappy mayor look like a captain of industry and it still takes being outed as a pedophile before you'll get voted out.

[Sunaimer]

This is a civil suit. I am very familiar with the law firm that represents the man. Very reputable and would not file a lawsuit without merit. IMHO Murray has created a mess in Seattle, from the homeless issues, to taxes. He is a terrible mayor. With the amount of money he spends on homelessness, he could have bought each homeless person a home to live in. Taxes are now 10.4%.

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

Not "possibly true" on statute of limitations - simply true. And the Times burying the last story 9 years ago is the epitome of dishonest journalism.

Not sure if a civil suit has a 'statute of limitation' clause? Wasn't a civil suit used against the Catholic priest?

[Xanathos]

Originally Posted by rantiquity

Not sure if a civil suit has a 'statute of limitation' clause? Wasn't a civil suit used against the Catholic priest?

I wasn't talking about civil suits. I was talking about criminal suits. What do I care about a civil suit between Murray and some guy? What does anyone care about that? Is the guy going to share the money?

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

I wasn't talking about civil suits. I was talking about criminal suits. What do I care about a civil suit between Murray and some guy? What does anyone care about that? Is the guy going to share the money?

Why do you care about any kind of suit be it criminal or civil, but I am sure both Murray and the defendants care? Obviously you don't and you, like the Seattle Times, you are both more interested in sweeping it under the rug.