News-Record.com

What an inapropriate question to ask...How is the public supposed to know if this man is qualified for this job???All anyone knows is what you and the rest of the tabloib rags around here have printed...It is sad to see that the local media, when given the chance to just report a news story, still finds a chance to take a shot at either Wray or the police department, taking whatever side is in vouge at that time...Shame on you...

It is a great job for David since he got the shaft by the City of Greensboro.

Why do you still insist on printing half-truths?
He deserves his day in court, but the sad truth about the situation is he probably won't pursue it because of the potential for further damage to the name of the Greensboro Police Department.
He should be overly qualified now that he is experienced in "dirty politics"!

"Wray has never been charged with a crime."

What a cheap shot. Unfortunately it is typical of the News and Fishwraps coverage of this story. Obviously the TSA doesn't buy the allegations against Wray.

Any job would be better than a job in Gso., since the powers to be are either in with big developers, drug dealers, corrupt, arrogant, selfish and without any concern for the citizens of GSO. They are only there for me, me, me.

Way to go David.....Greensboro's LOSS and Eastern Tennessee's Federal Security's GAIN!!!

Eastern Tennessee's Federal Security is very fortunate to gain such a respectable man for the job and he will get the job done.

Now someone needs to get busy on the Greensboro's police department and straighten it out........it's sure not being took care of as of now.

N&R: "Wray has never been charged with a crime."

Has anyone alleged that Wray committed a crime or do you just randomly state the fact so as to associate the words "Wray" and "crime"?

Tony and Cal, that sentence was included in the story for clarity. The preceding paragraph refers to allegations of misuse of power, favoritism and targeting black officers. It may have left the implication that Wray had been charged with a crime.

Congradulations David!
Doing right will always win. It is a GREAT move for you. And a GREAT loss for Greensboro. You have more support and respect than the thugs and idiots who are still in charge in the sorry run town.
You also have more TRUTH in your little finger than the News & Fishwrap has in it's entire staff.

First and foremost, Congrats to David Wray. Second, how absurd for the N&R to even ask such a question and have a debatable blog for this story. As usual, you are a disgrace to this city and a joke of a newspaper. John Robinson doing his usual response with lame excuses for his so called reporters who tell half truths, no backup for their stories and cheap shots. You just can't help yourselves. You can't tell a simple story about Wray getting a new job. You had to throw in the same old story right in the middle of the article and bring up all the racial lies and now the new line..."Wray has never been charged with a crime"
No, really? and what about "resulted in a host of lawsuits against the former chief" Where do you get your information from? "hosts of lawsuits"....
You are unbelievable!!

Due respect, the sentence about lawsuits reads: "...resulted in a host of lawsuits against the former chief and the city, and sparked Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints by dozens of black officers."

That is true.

I think its great to get rid of this person. The only reason he has not been charged with a crime is because he had his "administration" do all his dirty work for him. If he was so innocent, why did he quit the Dept. so readily when questioned by City legal? Anyone who believes the articles in the Rhino, needs to wake up and get a life.

I say to DW....go away and never come back!

Since when does a lawsuit equal a crime?
And in reference to the lawsuit, when was David Wray found liable?

And to Bud,
Anyone with even a small brain would know; if you get locked out of your office, you need to resign or face having been fired on your record. David choose the former rather than the latter. And as soon as someone can show and prove Jerry Bledsoe's articles in the Rhino Times are false, I'll choose to believe them over the N&R anyday. And why hasn't the N&R and the city officials denied the Rhino articles and come out with their own evidence? All they have is accusations.
No reason to answer, I already know the answer. They (the N&R and the city officials) don't have any evidence, because if they had gone to David Wray directly he would have told them the same story that he told Jerry Bledsoe. But they NEVER wanted David's side of the story. They had already made up their minds and were not interested in what David had to say.

Dan, a lawsuit doesn't equal a crime, and the story doesn't suggest that. The references are a couple paragraphs apart. And I'm not aware he was found liable of anything, which is what the story says.

The News & Record approached David Wray for every story it wrote about his time as chief and his resignation. He spoke to us for most of them.

I don't blame anyone for not talking with a News-Record reporter....every word you write is twisted to portray your side of the story.

John Robinson said:
Due respect, the sentence about lawsuits reads: "...resulted in a host of lawsuits against the former chief and the city, and sparked Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints by dozens of black officers."

Where is the truth in a host of lawsuits against David Wray? Maybe the sentence needs to be written differently? Yes, there are and will continue to be a "host" of lawsuits against the city, but there is only one as I know against David Wray and that is not just David Wray but several others and is from Jay Fulmore.

The News & Record approached David Wray for every story it wrote about his time as chief and his resignation. He spoke to us for most of them.

Oh really? Did Lorraine Ahearn and the N&R ask David Wray about the so-called "Secret Police" before it came out as a headline that read in big headline type: "'Secret police' use black ops on black cop."?
The VERY FIRST TIME that David Wray had heard anything about this so-called "Secret Police" was when he read the headline in the N&R.

So once again the N&R is trying to cover up, without facts.

Yes, if you read that story you reference you will see that David Wray is quoted.

John,
Surely you will admit the phrasing of the "lawsuits" line should have been clearer. Otherwise why would you associate a "host of lawsuits" in the same phrase when there has only been one lawsuit filed against Wray.

Instead of this juvenile questioning in Debatables (how would anybody know if this was a good job for David Wray?) might we expect a story on how the acquisition of this job might contradict Mitchell Johnson's version of the departure of Wray? I would love to know what the current council members think of this.

I miss Margaret.

The former chief and the city are together in the compound object because they are directly related. I think you're nit-picking, but as you are confused by the line, yes, it could have been clearer.

I just read the article again.
And NO WHERE in this article does it say anything about Wray being asked anything about a "Secret Police". The article states "Though once under Internal Affairs and Criminal Investigations and primarily assigned to keep tabs on criminal gangs and groups such as the Klan and Communists -- thus earning it the nickname the "Red Squad" -- Special Intelligence under Wray is an independent unit with a new moniker among officers leery of its function: "the secret police." According to your own article the term "Secret Police" was what "officers leery of its (Special Intelligence) function. And lets keep in mind who those officers were; James Hinson who was being investigated. Do you think he might have had a motive for giving a negative name to the Special Intelligence Div. since he was being investigated? DUH?

So no where can you prove that David Wray had been asked about or knew anything about this so-called "secret police". But yet the N&R printed it as a headline. Do you really call that responsible reporting?

Dan, I didn't mean to imply that we asked David Wray about everything in every story. I said we approached him to comment on the story we were reporting and that he did in most cases, as he did in that story.

I don't know if we asked his opinion of the officers referring to 'secret police.'

Nowhere does that article say that Lt. Hinson referred to it as secret police. That is your statement, not ours, and your conclusion.

David Wray certainly knew about special investigations. Whether he knew what some officers called it, I don't know. I also don't think whether he knew its nickname is particularly important.

I beg to differ. The nickname "secret police" is very important. It was devised to make David Wray look as if he was doing something in secret (like in the Russian secret police). Sure, the investigations that the Special Intelligence Div. was conducting needed to be in secret, But it wasn't wrong.Hinson needed to be investigated. It was TOTALLY justified. The term "secret police" is a negative name used to make the investigation appear to be wrong. The N&R should have discussed the "secret police" with Wray before you printed it.
You said "I don't know if we asked his opinion of the officers referring to 'secret police.". I'm sorry you don't think this is important (although it was important enough for the N&R to use as a headline). But this is VERY important. The nickname was used not only by officers who were mad that they were being investigated, but it was also used by the N&R as a HEADLINE to strip up emotion and draw attention. I'll say it again, this is NOT responsible reporting.
Do you feel the nickname "News and Fishwrap" has no importance?

I pay no attention to the names people call us.

Playing this out: So, we ask Wray, did you know some officers call Special Intelligence the "secret police?' He says, no, I didn't.

We write: Wray was unaware some officers call Special Intelligence "secret police."

You think that's a key point? OK. To me, though, particularly looking back at it, whether we asked the chief about his knowledge on what some officers call it seems a minor thing.

The article with the headline "'Secret police' use black ops on black cop" was the beginning of the end of David Wray as police chief. And how you can't see the negative slant that headline put on Wray, is beyond me. It wasn't the fact that "some officers" called the Special Intelligence Div. the "secret police". The problem was the headline drew attention and implied something that was not true and that is; Hinson was being investigated wrongly. Can you honestly tell me the term (and headline) "Secret Police..." did not have a negative slant to it? Why not have a headline that read Officer beiing investigated by Special Intelligence Div. I guess that wouldn't have cast the shadow over Wray like the "Secret Police" headline.

Sorry, Dan, the discussion keeps shifting. First, I thought your concern was that we didn't get Wray's comments in our reporting. Then, I thought you were saying that his opinion on what his officers were calling Special Investigations was important to be reported.

Now, I see what you're getting at. Yes, the headline had a negative slant. Yes, it said that Lt. Hinson was being investigated by his own department. Readers can draw whatever conclusions they want about that.

Is your position that had we published the headline you propose that Wray would still be chief?

I'm very happy for David Wray. In the end he got the better part of the deal. His name may have been dragged through the mud but his ew employer saw past that and realized they had the opportunity to hire an honorable and hard worker.

The ironic thing about....he seems at peace with what occurred, he seems over all the drama created by the News and Record....and the City of Greensboro is still dealing with all the BS that comes from their joke of a police department and the new commanders who "run" things.

I think David Wray got the better end of the deal!!!

Is your position that had we published the headline you propose that Wray would still be chief?

It very well may have. The negative slant of the "secret police" went on for weeks. And David Wray was trying to find out exactly what and where this so-called "secret police" story came from. By the time the real story got out (that there was no secret police, and Hinson was being investigated for good reason and the so-called "black book" (I know another story) was a legal police photo line up), the damage had already be done to David. Who by the way couldn't tell all of his side of the story because he couldn't talk about an on going investigation of a police officer. That gave Hinson time to spread his lies about a secret police and the N&R ran with it, disregarding the motive Hinson had.
Its call checking your sources.

OK, agreed maybe a little nit-picky but I just didn't like the associations between the two.
One final comment here for me.
During the entire Wray ordeal I think the N&R headline of "Secret police' use black ops on black cop" was one of the most grossly irresponsible and misleading claims made.
My question is about your headlines. Do the reporters determine the headline or do you have "headline writers" whose purpose is to inflame?

"The matter led to the departure of Wray's top command staff and resulted in a host of lawsuits against the former chief, the city and sparked Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints by dozens of black officers."

My lawsuit has nothing to do with what David Wray did, rather it has to do with what Mitch Johnson and the City staff are doing. Perhaps your article should have been more clear about who and what is really triggering these lawsuits. The City brought these lawsuits on themselves by the way they mishandled this matter.

So let's be clear about one thing. You don't get appointed to the position that Wray just was without a thorough FBI background check and political vetting. Your article doesn't mention that the FBI and SBI cleared Wray of wrongdoing. After reading the story, one gets the impression that Wray did a lot of bad things but managed to avoid being charged.

I realize this is in line with saving face over Lorraine Ahearn's thoroughly discredited thesis that is responsible for much of this in the first place. But you simply cannot come to terms with the fact that Mitch Johnson and Ahearn got it wrong. Johnson gave into political pressure from some bigots who were trying to cover up bad behavior within the GPD and didn't like the idea of a white police chief who wasn't going to allow business as usual, and Ahearn saw another good racially charged story for your paper. Every time you guys play the race card, you get it wrong and look foolish.

The evidence is overwhelming in favor of Wray and every allegation advanced by Mitch Johnson has been discredited. But still there are those who act is if Wray was convicted of something when in reality this case wouldn't survive summary judgment.

It would have been great for the N&R if Wray really was a racist, but rather than admit that was all wrong, your paper insists on leaving the idea of wrongdoing by Wray in the air even as he leaves for a more powerful position with more responsibility.

When Mitch Johnson resigns over allegations of misconduct, mismanagement, favoritism, and lying, will you write "Johnson has never been charged with a crime" for clarity as well?

I doubt it.

Face it. Your boy and your girl lost. They were wrong. Really wrong. David has moved on to bigger and better things than they ever will, and he survived the pettiness that is on display right now in your paper's article with more class than Mitch Johnson will ever know.

A competent newspaper would spend more time asking why Johnson still has his job in light of the mess he made of this case as well as all of the recent scandals in the police department under Chief Bellamy. But no, Wray must still be portrayed as the culpable one even as the evidence against Johnson mounts in multiple areas.

Wray passed the federal scrutiny. I doubt Johnson would, and the FBI would drive a freight train through the stories printed in the N&R about this matter.

At no time during the past two and one half years has the N&R gone to the trouble to spell out accomplishments during the Wray tenure, nor has it made any sincere attempt to look at his background.

I submitted a lengthy article to the N&R that spelled out Wray's education, law enforcement career, and accomplishments. N&R declined to print it, but it appears in this week's Rhino Times. My hope is that my feeble effort will somehow make the citizens of Greensboro more aware of the character and integrity of the man who served us well as chief of police during a challenging period.

I hope that some day the N&R will make a sincere effort to tell the full story about the life and career of David Wray, and the fine officers who served under him.

WELL SAID SAMUEL SPAGNOLA.
Good luck with your lawsuit.

The posts by Samuel Spagnola and Bill Knight highlight the sadness that many of us who care about Greensboro feel. The ability to address problems with intelligence, integrity and balance seems to be missing from many of Greensboro's institutions, and the consequences of this have become painfully obvious. It is sad to see a good city in decline, and scary to see how fast it is happening.

Let's go back to John's initial question- is this a good job for David Wray? Yes it is, but why do you ask? Even the question has an implication of something else to it. Almost as if John meant to add the word "considering..." to the end of it as if Wray had been proven to have done something wrong, and now we must consider whether such a person should be in such a position.

Here's a question that should be asked: Is City Manager a good job for Mitch Johnson?

Well Said Sam Spagnola! You took the words right out of my mouth. No one esle could have said it better. I truly enjoy reading your comments. So, John R. when are you going to write that article on Mitch Johnson that Sam suggested? Mitch needs to hand over the keys to his office, pack his bags, and leave town. Goodbye Mitch.

The Greensboro News and record was contacted by an attorney today in reference to articles printed involving ex-police chief David Wray.
The allegations of wrongdoing discussed by the two were neither confirmed nor denied by John Robinson of the News and Record.
Repeated efforts to contact Mr. Robinson have been have been met with silence. (the battery on my cell phone is dead)
The discussion, and questions, involved the names of Mitch Johnson, Lorraine Ahearn, the SBI, FBI, and a statement by Mr. Robinson that refers to allegations of misuse of power.

Here we go again going back to the same old thing getting that race card back out there.
What's the in the next scene? The Greensboro police department still has alot of work to do themselves to get the city's respect back. The same cops that were breaking the laws themselves are still there WHY?

If one goes back and read the series of Lorraine's columns about Wray it does not appear to me that they were written in any biased way. One does not get the sense at all that she was gunning for Wray in any way.

What the articles did do however was lend a kind of legitamacy to the people and their attourneys who were making accusations against Wray-mainly because they were talking to the press freely and Wray was not- so this introduced a kind of natural bias that the editors should have adjusted for. Add to this the seeming smoking guns of the tracking device and the black book (I never understood the outrage over the tracking device. Obviously it looked foolish when it was found but you can' t catch a dirty cop in the act by announcing for instance "Hey we're going to put a tracking device on your car, Is that oK?" and of course the black book is total misinterpretation)and one can see how things sno-balled.

As mentioned above, some of the headline selections were sensationalized and poorly chosen also, especially in retrospect, which may have lended more legitimacy to the accusations than the N&R intended.

The series of Ahearn artcicles viewed collectively, although not individually written in a biased manner, may have created a collective anti-Wray perception, again which may have been corrected for by better editing or maybe some better balance.

We are waiting for your own post-mortem here, John

Hurray for Mr. Wray!

Unfortunately, the City is further damaged!
The leaders look spiteful!
The management is in a Quandry!
Tennessee is a Winner!
North Carolina-Triad- is a looser!
The N&R is being Sold!
Hopefully, Mitch is on his way out and Carolyn has not had the courage to call him into her office to do the dirty deed!

Or: Perhaps she is afraid Mitch will lock her out first!

Guess we aren't going to get one, huh?

No, I'm not going to give one yet again. Been there, done that on many other threads.

John, if you've ever given a halfway- comprehensive post responding to the public perception that the N&R was an adjunctive force in Wray's termination, then I apologize. I must have missed it.

This discussion has gone on for more than two years so it's no surprise that you've missed it. My observation is that the people who believe the Rhino's version of events don't believe mine, period. I've moved on.

It may be better to do one, big, cathartic, send-off post or even better-a Sunday column, both looking honestly at things that were done right and things you would do differently the next time a special interest group tries to get rid of a police chief using hysterical, unfounded claims.

It would feel good and people could maybe move past it and stop badgering you.

Something to think about.