Seattle Mayor Ed Murray sexually abused foster son, child-welfare investigator found in 1984

[alp227]

Source: Seattle Times

An Oregon child-welfare investigator concluded that Ed Murray sexually abused his foster son in the early 1980s, leading state officials to assert that “under no circumstances should Mr. Murray be certified” as a foster parent in the future, according to public records obtained by The Seattle Times.

The investigation by Oregon Child Protective Services (CPS) of Jeff Simpson’s allegations determined them to be valid — meaning the agency believed Murray sexually abused Simpson, the records show.

“In the professional judgement of this caseworker who has interviewed numerous children of all ages and of all levels of emotional disturbance regarding sexual abuse, Jeff Simpson has been sexually abused by … Edward Murray,” CPS caseworker Judy Butler wrote in the May 1984 assessment.

Murray, elected Seattle’s mayor in 2013, last week repeated in an interview with The Seattle Times that he never abused Simpson, and he underscored that prosecutors had decided decades ago not to charge him.

Read more: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/mayor-ed-murray-sexually-abused-foster-son-child-welfare-investigator-found-in-1984/

[nikibatts]

1. Too many people willing to testify under oath to verify story.

No winners...everyone loses in this case. You know how the RW turds are going to treat this.

[pnwmom]

2. The article says the boy had accused another foster parent of the same thing

and that he was unstable and manipulative.

Also, that there is a lower standard of proof in CPS determinations (as there should be).

I think CPS was right in its determination, and the prosecutor's decision not to charge him was probably right, too.

On edit:

The wording of the title bothers me. If you only read the first half of the sentence you'd think he'd been found guilty. You have to read all the way to the end to learn this was a CPS investigator's claim that was never tested in court.

And the article doesn't mention that Murray recently submitted to a physical examination that didn't confirm the accuser's description.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/mayor-ed-murrays-lawyer-medical-exam-disproves-accusers-anatomical-claim/

Attorney Robert Sulkin said the physical exam conducted earlier Tuesday showed no trace of a growth or mole on Murray’s genitalia, as claimed in the lawsuit filed Thursday by a 46-year-old Kent man under his initials, “D.H.”

“This is game-changing. This is the heart of the allegations, and they’re false,” Sulkin said. He called the supposed mole “the fingerprint” of the case and said without it, the lawsuit should be dropped as baseless.

The exam by Murray’s personal physician, Dr. Craig Pepin, found “no scars or evidence of prior surgery” to indicate Murray had such a mole removed, according to excerpts of the medical report released at the news conference.