Update: Duane Starkenburg charged, bail raised to $500,000

Bail for Duane Starkenburg – charged last January with attacking joggers in Lincoln Park, then arrested last Friday for investigation of child rape (as reported here yesterday) – is now up to $500,000. That’s the word from the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which has just formally charged Starkenburg in the child-rape case. The charging documents give an approximate time frame for the crime, between April 2000 and April 2002, at which time the victim, the daughter of a then-friend, would have been no older than 11. The documents also say that investigators learned about this while doing followup investigation this month on the jogger-attacks case, for which Starkenburg was awaiting trial. He is scheduled to be arraigned on October 11th. (Photo from February hearing by Mike Siegel/Seattle Times, republished with permission)

Guy September 27, 2011 (3:53 pm)

Castrate him!!!

Jiggers September 27, 2011 (5:15 pm)

Clearly mental and should be locked in a mental care faility. Who got you that nice suit and watch there sicko?

Lola September 28, 2011 (6:47 am)

It is about time for this guy to be locked up. I just keep reading about all the stuff this guy has done and wonder why it took so long? I hope he can not post bail either.

Alice September 28, 2011 (8:39 am)

Since he has been barred from parks, I have seen him jogging, daily, past my house. I am relieved to know he is off the streets.

Concerned September 29, 2011 (6:45 am)

Well, maybe others will step forward. there are more victims around. It’s hard to step forward, people don’t believe you or you are afraid of ridicule or afraid to admit “you” let it happen or are ashamed … don’t be …

(required) September 29, 2011 (7:46 pm)

WSB, I’d like to suggest you please consider providing a link to the charging document filed in court on this, and for that matter, on any criminal or other court matters you report on. I think the document can be redacted to protect an alleged victim’s identity while informing readers about the precise allegations raised against an accused, or involved in a controversy. I prefer to read what the charges are from an actual filed document, but practically never actually get to see them. Just a suggestion.

WSB September 29, 2011 (8:34 pm)

There is no link unless I buy the documents, download them, and reupload them to WSB, therefore creating a link “myself.” Anyone can sign up for an account with King County ECR Online, it’s not a media thing, but there is no direct link since they charge per page. Even the dockets listing the charges and actions in cases do not have direct links, as you have to go through several levels of acknowledging permission to get to the docket itself. Back to charging papers, I do not have the time or equipment to download, print out, redact, rescan, reupload, and in this case even if it were easy, I wouldn’t do it – I’m not hosting charging papers on our server with a graphic description of a child’s sexual violation. There are other news organizations that are more than happy to publish additional lurid details – I’m sure I saw at least one go by on the first day this broke – TR

sayWA? September 30, 2011 (10:14 pm)

WSB, I would like you to do all of my research for me, in every aspect of my life. First, personally, I have many curiosities, which brought me to you to begin with.

But I prefer to read original source material, and as you know, that takes time to find.

So I want YOU to look up everything that is ever of interest to me, create links to sites that allow it – indexing those links, of course – alphabetically, numerically, and in chronological order as well…

I will write to you about my professional needs later…

WSB September 30, 2011 (10:29 pm)

I know you’re being sarcastic, but we do try to go the proverbial extra mile. There are some extra miles, however, we will not go, either because we don’t have the time or we just aren’t going to do our reporting that way. People can certainly ask. I have linked some court docs in the past – but they were the fairly harmless civil-lawsuit variety, no redactions needed, no violence or sexual assault, etc. And I’ve transcribed some somewhat-graphic docs. This one, no. If the case goes to trial, we’ll review again then to decide how to handle … TR