Police story will take time to untangle
Judging by the letters to the editor, many readers are troubled by the handling of the city's investigation into the actions of now-former police chief David Wray. They question the city's motives. They question the city's process. They question the way information has been presented and released.
Many of them support Wray, based on his long history of service to the department and community. They think he's been railroaded.
Unfortunately, trying to make judgments in this case is like trying to determine whether O.J. Simpson is innocent by watching his football highlights. The full story isn't available, and the few people who have it, aren't talking much.
In case you haven't been following this story, Police Chief David Wray resigned last month after City Manager Mitch Johnson asked him to respond to issues raised by an investigation of the department. At the center of the investigation are questions about racial profiling and the activities of the department's internal Special Intelligence Section.
When the story first broke, Johnson released a statement. Over the next several days, that was followed by statements from Wray, acting chief Tim Bellamy and the City Council. Other than Johnson, the major players haven't answered many questions, and there are a lot of questions.
Television has trained us that crimes can be solved in 60 minutes, counting commercials. Cable news shoutfests have led us to believe that answers are immediate and judgments sound, depending upon who speaks the loudest and most often.
Real life doesn't work that way.
In fairness, city officials are bound by state personnel laws and can only make limited information on personnel matters available. This case is complicated by the fact that the acting chief is reviewing the investigative reports and considering possible options, which could include criminal charges. The FBI has begun a preliminary inquiry, what a spokesman called a "look-see." These will take months.
As a result, information is leaked out in dribs and drabs, which may lead to robust civic debate, but not necessarily full civic understanding.
This newspaper has no more access to information than the general public. But because we have the time and resources to act as a stand-in for the public, two reporters -- Lorraine Ahearn and Eric Townsend -- have worked on the story fulltime since the chief resigned a month ago.
They have talked with virtually everyone involved. In reporting like this, there are a lot of deadends. We get tips that don't check out or that we can't confirm. We pull a variety of public records that give us hints of things that may have happened, but need fleshing out. Privately, Wray gave city officials a response to the allegations against him. We got a copy of it and published an article about it last Sunday.
His version of events shed some more light on the case. Still, like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, it presented but one side of a multi-faceted investigation.
We've heard from lawyers; one lawsuit has already been filed against the city. We've heard from organized groups such as the Pulpit Forum demanding that more information be released. We've heard from people who've come into contact with the Special Intelligence Unit. We've heard a lot of "no comment."
Unfortunately, though, this story will continue to come out in small pieces over the course of weeks and months. It's not the way we'd like to report it. Citizens would be better served if they had more information. Presumably the City Council could authorize the release of more information that would paint a clearer picture of the case, although without knowing what’s in the file, it's difficult to say what can be made public.
One thing is certain, though: Public trust in the police and confidence in the city are at stake. Already, the city has already spent tens of thousands of dollars in tax money and committed hundreds of staff hours to the case. The totals will only grow as lawsuits are filed. Plus, the reputations of Wray, Hinson and other officers have been called into question. Some would say they've already been sullied.
For those reasons, we're going to stay on the story and follow it wherever it takes us, even if it's not pretty.
Comments (13)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"Unfortunately, though, this story will continue to come out in small pieces over the course of weeks and months. It's not the way we'd like to report it. Citizens would be better served if they had more information."
I talked to a N&R reporter a few years ago about another story not reported the way the paper wanted to because the reporter said they could not get triple verification of the facts. "Everyone knew," but you required that sort of fact-check (pardon my failing memory, but were you editor in 1998?). I was peeved that you didn't write about the allegations, but have come to respect that position now. You get older, you hopefully get wiser (that's "I get older...")
What's the standard on this story? Triple fact-check? Something else?
Posted on February 12, 2006 7:17 PM
Another one I'd like the answer to.
Posted on February 12, 2006 7:21 PM
John, I think your coverage since the time of Wray's forced resignation has been quite good. Regardless of the degree of double- and triple-checking, this situation continues to be "one person's word against that of another" as long as the City continues its present position regarding release of evidence.
For various reasons, I wonder whether the City will ever perceive it to be in its interests to release more-- unless, of course, there is a public civil or criminal trial, which is another uncertainty.
Posted on February 12, 2006 7:41 PM
Mary, I thought you were going to rest today.
Sue, the standard is truth. Of course, that's pretty high. We like court documents because they are protected by law. It depends on who says it, who will go on the record as saying it, and what they are saying. Ask your husband the lawyer, Sue, he can give you chapter and verse, I suspect. We look for people who would be in a position to know for a fact as a primary source....as opposed to a secondary source. We look for people who have no ax to grind and who don't toss out opinion, as opposed to information.
Former Chief Wray's response to a city report -- which has not been released to the public -- had to be double checked with the public record. He had a lot of opinion in it and many references to other people, people we couldn't reach. Just quoting the former chief wasn't enough in some cases.
We get the "everyone knows" argument for a story often. But unless we can get independent confirmation, then it doesn't do us much good. Everyone knows is often based on rumor and third-hand information that we often cannot trace back to its source. Much of the time this kind of information is defamatory, which we endeavor to avoid publishing. Say, for instance, that someone reads the discussion about the Danish cartoon and tells someone that Robinson's a coward because he wouldn't publish the cartoon. That person then concludes that Robinson wouldn't publish the cartoon because he was afraid of the reaction. And say they write that in a newspaper or blog without calling me or quoting me directly and accurately about that. Publishing that as fact would be wrong because it is wrong...and possibly defamatory.
This isn't complete, but the Carolina-Miami games is starting so, see ya.
Posted on February 12, 2006 8:02 PM
Where are my manners....thanks, Joe.
Posted on February 12, 2006 8:02 PM
I took the DAY off John. Last time I looked out the window the sun was down and deer were eating my grass.
The problem I have with your approach is that "news subjects" or potential news subjects often have strong "opinions" about the facts - or the experiences they've had/endured. And some of them have legitimate axes to grind. But in your book this does not make the story deserving of coverage? People do not live in vacuums.
I DO have court documents - in black and white - to back up what I've been trying for over THREE YEARS to get the N&R to take a serious look at. This past December I filed a complaint with Randolph County law enforement that I wanted to swear out, AND WAS NOT ALLOWED TO . . . a complaint that has not been properly investigated or answered. It's a "Chief Wray" kind of situation - only it involves big-shot "non-profit" hospital administrators - in an area that you say you cover. So where are you?.
Joe, in this police debacle, even the lawyers have lawyers. Are we, the public going ever going to find out what John says we have "the right to know"? Unlikely, I think. Unless the lawsuits that will inevitably be filed wind up actually being tried instead of settled.
John, you're a newspaper editor whose newspaper publishes & hosts blogs - where you ask for people's opinions all the time (and you've basked in the national attention this has brought). You offer editorial opinion to us. Your actions are therefore subject to scrutiny and criticism and opinion (sometimes strong). In other words, like it or not, you're a public figure. You've invited the attention and the opinion of your readers. And you're getting it.
You spoke of truth being the standard. "Defamatory" does not equate to libel or slander if the so-called "defamation" is true (I learned that doing battle with lawyers who didn't grasp that concept BEFORE they filed the intimidation-tactic lawsuit that I spent many thousands fending off). Truth IS the standard - and an absolute defense.
I just sent you an e-mail about a WFMY-TV report today hat the Feds have concluded Medicaid was ripped off (yet again) by North Carolina hospitals incorrectly billing. This time it's about 89 million taxpayer dollars down the toilet. The hospitals were not identified in the report (so much for the public's right to know). The reporter I contacted does not believe that this situation is related to the near-billion dollar rip-off of "disproportionate share".
Where is the press - as NC hospitals and doctors now scream and jump up and down and complain about cuts in Medicaid funding - because it's cutting into their profits and incomes? Where were these hospitals and doctors when the money went missing? If these hospitals cannot spend the money properly and doctors cannot effectively police the system, where do they get off complaining when the funding is cut? And again, why isn't the press asking this question - as a matter of accountability and the public's right to know how its healthcare dollars are being spent?
Enjoy the game. I'm going to turn the lights off and watch the deer.
Posted on February 12, 2006 9:13 PM
I am very interested in getting the complete facts about the Wray case too. Unfortunately, there was too much of the "verdict first-evidence later" mentality in the comments I read and heard when the case first surfaced.
Posted on February 13, 2006 3:32 PM
Mary, You mentioned another "windmill" I tilted at and got whacked with some years ago, ie trying to get the names of the culprits who ripped off the tax payer dollars published. The crime was news but the criminals weren't, then and now. Is it because the criminals are such "good and upstanding citizens" in their city or county or state? Of course! You can't golf with a person one week and accuse him of being a criminal the next now can you? After all what about the Committee for Good Works you both serve on? And if the spotlight shines on him might it get you too? Gotta STOP that right now!
Posted on February 13, 2006 8:48 PM
Brenda, it is called "Asheboro 20/20", a project endorsed by the City Council. The Asheboro City Council KNOWS what this man did because in the spring of 2004 (when my Dad was still alive to see it), I mustered my courage, stood before them and TOLD them.
A year later, who do you think they picked to guide Asheboro's future?
The "spotlight" only shines on him. The newspaper publisher at the Courier Tribune thinks this guy can do no wrong. Letters to the Editor don't get published, blogs are a foreign element to that paper, and news reporters at City Council meetings don't pick up their pen when I stand up to speak.
You see, the myth that I am "difficult" to work with or "rubbed somebody the wrong way" (like the administrators who threatened me) . . . is justification after the fact. It grew out of my fight against what these gentlemen did - not so much out of what happened before. And there is plenty of evidence to back that up in the form of WAY BAD behavior on the part of other (male) doctors - behavior these same gentlemen overlooked for the sake of "cooperative relationships" or greed (until they couldn't anymore). A girl is much easier to call "difficult" or even "crazy" when she stands up (or talks back) to a man. But the fact IS, when kids were in trouble back then, I got the call. Am I opinionated? Yes. Am I passionate about what I do (be it medicine or blogging)? Yes. Can I be "difficult" when promises are not kept or patients are put in harm's way? You betcha. But even if that makes me "difficult", does it justify administrators of a non-profit entity completely warping the intent of a federal program to recruit and retain doctors - by intimidation and threats, by breaching contracts, by abusing confidential documents, by using the Court as a weapon, and by lying under Oath to save a little money (even as the adminstrators stuff their pockets because the guys they play golf with don't know how to say no?) NO. It's just another excuse to look the other way while these guys dance.
Where are the newspapers?
I empathize with David Wray because I KNOW in my bones something else is/was going on - that someone else is not telling the complete truth about what was happening behind the scenes at the police department. Last time I looked, the US Constitution guaranteed due process. But this man has been tried and convicted by rumor and innuendo and incomplete information released to the press - he was locked out of his own office before he resigned - and now the City Council won't even meet with him?
I have no idea what the Chief did or did not do (if he's a scapegoat or a "racist"), but the way the City handled this just SMELLS. I also know how that feels - for no one to have your back after you tried to clean up their ugly messes. In eight years, the Randolph Hospital Board has never seen fit to invite me to a table to hear my side of the story. I understand (from another set of posts on JR's blog) that the way they make decisions is called "constructive quorum" and it's all done at the golf courses and country clubs where the public cannot see.
I ask you, in the Greensboro police debacle, are all the lawyers circling like vultures going to help us figure "the whole truth"? No.
As for my case, the News & Record hasn't exercised its investigative journalism legs down in Randolph County since Ethan Feinsilver worked the beat. We know how that one turned out.
Posted on February 14, 2006 9:00 AM
Good post, Mary.....and right on target about the Wray affair.
Posted on February 14, 2006 10:58 AM
I almost think City leaders WANT the lawsuits to fly - because the lawyers most certainly won't let anyone comment once that gets started. To quote a story up on the N&R's homepage today (the lady suing McDonald's), "as this is a pending legal matter, it would be inappropriate to comment any further".
They can hide behind the legal eagles and tell us their silence is for our own good.
So don't expect to hear "the whole truth" any time soon - if ever.
Posted on February 15, 2006 12:54 PM
The N&R certainly doesn’t want to get it’s fingers dirty with any scandals taking place right under their noses. Golf buddies I assume? But they also know what happens to any newspaper that exposes “leading citizens” by watching the local “intelligentcia” maul The Rhino. A newspaper willing to get at the truth and name names. I was amused by these same people bemoaning the loss of Jefferson-Pilot to Greensboro and what a blow it would be to the economy and standing of the city. Yet the Rhino was the only ones to dare to mention the local culprit otherwise known as the “$6 million bobble-head”. It is strange that The Rhino gets put down so much as having their facts all wrong and yet when asked to verify their conclusions they always can. I even read one reporter who wrote that John Hammer didn't take one note during a certainly meeting leading the reporter to conclude that Mr. Hammer had already written his story. Perhaps he had because perhaps he already knew the story from a back room source.
Could it be The Rhino's plebian penchant for the dramatic that so offends? I personally find it a good read!
Posted on February 15, 2006 1:35 PM
Brenda, you see that everywhere. Every time I have made some noise about what happened to me at Randolph Hospital - be it by updating the website (www.asheboropediatrics.com), or taking out ads or whatever, within a very short period of time you see the Courier Tribune pump up the expensive/flashy full-page ads for Randolph Hospital, and/or run a press release disguised as news that lauds the hospital, and/or run a story on how one or more of the principle players in my mess was honored at some community function.
I updated my website two weeks ago. I posted the re-drafted perjury complaint (the one I wanted to swear out - DANGER JOHN ROBINSON! - but no one would let me because then someone might have to take it seriously) . . . as well as letters to Randolph County law-enforcement and local legislators (critical of their failure to help).
My criminal complaint was turfed back to the DA's office after Sheriff Hurley handed it off to Police Chief, Gary Mason (as a matter of "jurisdiction"). The Asheboro Police Department won't investigate the allegations without the DA (Garland Yates) giving the go-ahead (I got the same song and dance from the SBI), and the DA's office is so far maintaining radio silence. You see, if you're a public official (or a hospital BOD member whose administrators have been caught lying under Oath - exposing the hospital to temendous liability) and you want someone to "just go away", you simply ignore them . . . and refuse to respond to correspondence . . . and refuse to meet with them (shades of the Greensboro City Council and Chief Wray) . . . and refuse to explain your reasoning. It appears you're nobody to Garland Yates if you don't have a lawyer. I think the DA wants me to give up on the criminal case, and turn again to the civil courts. I am just not going to do it. The system was corrupt the first time - why would I go back for more?
Sure enough, the ads have cranked up. It used to drive me nuts (as I don't have a big publicly-subsidized budget to make my case and counter this stuff). Now it's almost funny.
What's in the Courier today? Well, two articles of interest actually. Litchard Hurley has announced he isn't going to re-run for Sheriff, Police Chief Gary Mason says he doesn't want the job and Kevin Hines (a former investigator at the DA's office - who was fired and then unsuccessfully sued the Sheriff/DA - making allegations against the two that the Courier now politely calls "political hardball") is running as an Independent (if he can get the signatures in Republican country). The article was full of praise for both Sheriff Hurley and Gary Mason . . . all of it well-deserved, I'm sure. I have no beef with these gentlemen except for this one little thing: When a home-grown doctor needed the "big bads" of Randolph County law enforcement to stand on principle and stand up to the District Attorney (rather than play politics), these guys ducked.
The next story was full of praise for state legislators Harold Brubaker, Arlie Culp and Jerry Tillman for the stance they have taken on lobbying reform. Now, all three of these fellas got letters (posted on the website) for their abject failure to represent the interests of a doctor in public service (and by extension her patients and the public). Of course, the people who screwed the doctor to the wall are probably some of their biggest campaign contributors.
Has the Courier Tribune - well aware of the website's existence and my allegations (for over three years) - bothered to pick up a phone - a pen - anything - and look into this case - or bring pressure to bear on the principle players? No. Have they published letters to the Editor? No. Did a story get written when I protested in front of the hospital by myself (twice) - or appeared before the Asheboro City Council? Why? Because the publisher thinks the CEO of Randolph Hospital has done a great job. And the Courier doesn't have blogs - where people can counter the editorial status-quo.
As for the News & Record, it ran from Randolph County with its tail tucked between its legs after Ethan Feinsilver worked his magic and Jerry Bledsoe wrote his book ("Death by Journalism" - a disturbing read). And they haven't been heard from since. The N&R got it very wrong once - so they're not even going to try again.
The Wray debacle in Greensboro is the same old same old - just a different cast of characters.
Posted on February 15, 2006 3:57 PM