Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Follow-Up: Satterberg's Sins of Omission

1

Sweet!

Glad something is happening!

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 28, 2007 2:10 PM
2

How naive you are Josh Feit. You need to see the big picture. If every pedophile catholic priest in Seattle was prosecuted and sent to buttslam heaven, who would run the Parishes? Then how would the ailing Pride of Rome compete with the upstart protestant super churches run by the likes of respectable people like Ted Haggard. Satterburg sees this, and has done his part for the glory of the lord and the Republican party. I wish the church would just embrace reality and make a Patron-Saint-of-Buttslamming-pubolecent-boys-under-a-gaudy-cross-of-Christ. God bless ya.

Posted by gj | September 28, 2007 2:15 PM
3

Uh...dude. Fraud got moved back into the Criminal Division because they were all about a hundred years old and dug in like rotten razor clams. If you talked to anyone who used to be over there and got canned, of course they'll have it in for Norm and Dan (and Kathy Von Olst and Mark Larson too). Sainsbury and the rest of those guys didn't go quietly...

Posted by I'm Voting for Bill, But C'mon Josh | September 28, 2007 2:30 PM
4

the article as I read it paints satterburg to be a scumfuck enabler of child rape.

on the other hand, i'm sure these kinds of swept-under-the-rug situations occur all the time in a prosecutor's office. seen in this light, the article reads as mere election-year axe-grinding by satterburg's former colleagues.

so which description is more accurate? well, since satterburg is a republican, i feel pretty comfortable going with scumfuck childrape enabler.

Posted by bing | September 28, 2007 3:02 PM
5

Your news piece was a bit unfocused and confusing - and relied, unfortunately, on one attorney's dated complaints. You needed more info and better fact checking because it came across are mere campaign smear. The story so far: Satterberg decided not to spend perhaps millions prosecuting dead and defrocked priests, instead working with the archdiocese to help it set policy. I don't necessarily agree that he took the high road, but your story, factually and analytically, falls way short of showing whether or not that was the right decision.

Posted by Lawyer | September 28, 2007 3:18 PM
6

Josh, beware what those who refuse to talk on the record say about this: Axes a plenty to grind here. The Fraud Unit did not have the best reputation for hard work and results. Lots of folks will talk off the record about them too.

Posted by beware | September 28, 2007 4:26 PM
7

@6,
Neither my post nor my story is focused on the Fraud Unit. Just the tool—the Inquiry Judge System—that was at their disposal.

Posted by Josh Feit | September 28, 2007 5:45 PM
8

The issue is whether he used what was at his disposal to make the decision - right? An whether the appearance of fairness and impartiality was victi to his poor judgment when he worked with the Arch'd knowing that a request for investigation had ben communicated to his office. And I thought lawyers were always focused onthe issue????!!!!
- Wow, with this kind of slamming of colleagues it is probably Time for a change of leadership.

Posted by km | September 28, 2007 6:03 PM
9

As someone with some understanding of both the KCPAO & the Fraud Division, I would just point out that it's generally the policy of the KCPAO to only open files on cases referred to them by an investigative agency (KC Sheriff's Office, Seattle PD, etc.). It would be news to me if the KCPAO opens its own investigations. So while the Fraud division (nearly 100% liberals who wouldn't be the first to line up to back Satterberg) had investigative techniques used to assist police agencies with their investigations, it would have been a break from policy for those tools to be used in the manner suggested by Kosnoff.

If he's mad at somebody, he should be mad at whatever police agency he couldn't convince to open a file on these cases. But if none of the cases were within the statute of limitations or if they lacked credible evidence with which to open an investigation, then it wouldn't be a surprise for the police to decline to expend their resources on an investigation.

I'm not sure I understand the allegation. Norm Maleng (not a Catholic, and highly regarded for his ethics) and Dan Satterberg (also not Catholic, also respected for his ethical standards) had some agenda that they used to justify allowing child abusers to go unpunished? This is about as serious an allegation as one can make about a public official, and it hardly seems like the whole picture has been illuminated by Josh's article.

Posted by Anon | September 29, 2007 11:31 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).