An attorney for Seattle Mayor Ed Murray fired back against sexual-abuse allegations, saying a doctor’s examination disproves a key claim in a lawsuit filed last week.
An attorney for Seattle Mayor Ed Murray fired back Tuesday against sexual-abuse allegations, saying a doctor’s examination disproves a key claim in a lawsuit filed last week.
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.
- Seattle Mayor Ed Murray resigns after fifth child sex-abuse allegation
- Accuser files new suit against former mayor Ed Murray, adds city of Seattle as defendant
- Murray's cousin accuses him of child molestation
- Man who sued Murray over alleged sex abuse wants millions from the city
- Accuser drops lawsuit against Seattle mayor
- Murray won't seek second term: 'It tears me to pieces to step away'
- Lawsuit alleges Murray sexually abused troubled teen in 1980s
- Meet Lincoln Beauregard, the lawyer for Mayor Murray’s accuser
- ‘He knows my name’: Accuser speaks out
- Why we're not allowing reader comments
- Podcast: How our story came together
“He has absolutely no credibility and the case should be dropped,” Sulkin said of the accuser. “And I ask his lawyers — now that they know — to drop the complaint.”
Separate from the lawsuit, two other men also have accused Murray in interviews of decades-ago sexual abuse — claims the mayor also has denied.
Lincoln Beauregard, an attorney for D.H., responded with a defiant statement saying his client has “found peace” in knowing the other two men’s allegations have been “given voice” as a result of his case.
D.H. “is not running for office” and plans “to win this lawsuit on the merits in due time,” the statement said.
Beauregard also attacked the mayor’s “political hit team” and suggested the doctor’s exam could not be independently verified. He said the mayor should “consider the calls for him to step aside and not utilize public resources and campaign funds to fight this lawsuit.”
Filed in King County Superior Court, D.H.’s lawsuit alleges Murray sexually abused him over several years when D.H. was a teenager for payments of $10 to $20. It says D.H. was a high-school dropout addicted to crack cocaine who met Murray on a Metro bus.
Murray, a Democrat elected mayor in 2013, has flatly denied the allegations and said in a statement Friday that he intended to stay on the job and continue his campaign for re-election this fall.
The mayor also has denied the allegations by the other two men, who say they knew Murray when they were growing up in a Portland center for troubled children.
Jeff Simpson and Lloyd Anderson alleged Murray sexually abused them in the 1980s, when they were teenagers. Both raised the allegations a decade ago, with Simpson threatening a lawsuit that never emerged, and repeated them in recent interviews.
Like D.H., Anderson described what he said was an anomaly on Murray’s genitals, describing it to a paralegal in 2007 as “an unusual bump,” rather than a mole.
Simpson, when interviewed by The Seattle Times last month, said he did not remember any such anomaly, though he remembered his attorney asking about Anderson’s recollection.
In his news conference, Sulkin slammed The Seattle Times for what he called “a rush to publish this story” about Murray “without giving us a chance to debunk it.”
Michele Matassa Flores, The Seattle Times’ managing editor, responded to that claim, saying the paper “did not rush to publish this story, and in fact we contacted the mayor the night before we published it online to get his response” and included the entire written statement of Murray’s attorney in the initial story.
Sulkin also dismissed other information in D.H.’s lawsuit — including the accuser knowing Murray’s old phone number and being able to describe the inside of his apartment at the time — as not important and proof of nothing.
Asked if Murray would be willing to participate in another medical exam by a neutral doctor, Sulkin said: “I would hope it doesn’t come to that. I would hope that this is considered credible enough, but I’m not against a fair analysis by a doctor if a judge ordered it.”