News-Record.com

Hi John,

Does protection of your source have to entail not denying that the source was DBS? I can understand that you wouldn't want to get into a game of "It wasn't her, or him, or him, or her, or her..." but with all of the finger-pointing at DBS, it seems like her situation would be an exception where it would simply be humane to say she is not your source. (If indeed she was not, but maybe you meant something different when you said that you cannot clear her.)

I agree with Roch.

DBS is being asked to resign from Council by at least one other council member. This is not your run-of-the-mill case of not revealing sources (and no one is asking you to do that, John)

DBS should take it upon herself to clear her own name via affidavit and/or lie detector. Barring that, she should at least explain how her copy got into someone else's leaking hands.

However, the N&R should state that she was not their source - if indeed she was not - to clear her name.

It is just the right thing to do from my vantage point.

Let me dance on the head of a pin for a moment longer and point out that it's the 101 posting that has been linked to Bellamy-Small, not the News & Record's copy. Whether we say that Bellamy-Small did or did not give us our copy does not address how her copy ended up on 101. Seems it is 101's responsibility to root out the poster rather than throwing it back to the newspaper, which had nothing to do with the 101 posting.

I understand your thinking that eliminating one person from the mix is the answer. To me the step between us saying, "OK, it's not her" to being asked, "Well, then, who gave it to you?" is short and one I don't plan to take. She and you are making this a News & Record problem to solve. In my view, it's not.

There is this: All the bloggers who've been given the report post that Bellamy-Small isn't (or is) their source and announce they did (or didn't) post it on 101. Maybe that would help her cause.

The council has determined whom it thinks is the leaker and, best I can tell, has no clear plan for what to do with that information. It will be interesting to see if they have any public discussions about it.

DBS has specifically addressed the leak to the N&R, saying it wasn't her and saying that the N&R could clear her name. That's one issue: her asking the N&R to clear her name on the leak to you. It is only a N&R "problem" to the extent you are willing to ignore her pleas. You can't deflect from that by saying that who gave copies to bloggers may also be exculpatory, as true as that may be.

And I'd say that if we "clear" her, it does nothing to clear her. She would still have council members saying, yeah, ok. The paper says you didn't give it to them. So, how did it end up on 101? That's the one we have evidence about.

This is deflection, best I can tell. Perhaps she could come out and discuss some possibilities of how her copy came to be distributed?

We've answered her by saying that we won't. And I haven't heard a good reason for us to start down a slope that feels slippery.

The problem of the N&R "clearing" Bellamy-Small is that doing so would make it easy for folks to figure out the identity of anonymous sources by process of elimination:

"Can you clear Mr. X's name?" No
"Can you clear Mr. Y's name?" No
"Can you clear Mr. Z's name?" Er, no comment.

Besides, this whole deal is a tempest in a teapot created by the City Council. I don't blame the N&R from distancing themselves from this public, um, shouting match.

I agree with you, JonRob, that this is deception and it has been so since her adamant refusal to sign an affidavit to her makeshift "press conference" and community meeting to explain why she wouldn't take the polygraph to her "calling in sick" for last night's meeting to her public denial that faxed either during or after the meeting and when N&O's skeleton crew was on duty. Saying that the N&O knows she's innocent, but won't step up creates a nice smokescreen, albeit transparent, for her to continually hide behind (or so she thinks). Holding N&O responsible for the content on GSO101.com is a rather vapid objectivication. Her reluctance to face the public, coupled with her overeaction to each move of the Council to discover the leak, speaks so loud that I can't hear what she says.

I appreciate N&O "taking the high road" in this matter and not being sucked-in to an ethical morass by T.DBS. If she were the only "confidential source" the N&O ever had, I'd say, "Tell it all!" But the cost of entering into this DBS-created quagmire would be to lose the trust of thousands(?) who have provided leads to the N&O.

I agree with the calls for her resignation, at this point. It's much too late for her to regain whatever political viability she may have had. The honorable person would have resigned before it went this far but, then again, she wasn't really elected for her character, now, was she?

OK, let's see if I have this right.
N&R receives RMA report.
N&R has report for 6 months.
RMA report suddenly shows up on the blogosphere.
Purloined RMA report was D. Bellamy-Small's.
N&R refuses to say DBS did NOT give it to the N&R. Ergo, DBS is the logical suspect in originally leaking the RMA report to the N&R.
DBS says she did not give the RMA report to the blogs.
Well, if she gave it to the N&R and THEY gave it to the blogs, DBS is not lying, is she?

Seems the conduit between the original leaker and the blogosphere is the N&R.

I'm with you up to your ergo, jaycee, which means "therefore" or "consequently." Our refusal to say who our source was isn't linked logically to Bellamy-Small being our source. For that matter, we have refused to say that any city council member or city employee did not give it to us. Where does that put them in your scenario?

There is a conduit between a leaker and the blogosphere? Man, that sounds gross.

Three entities are known to have had copies.
Bellamy-Small.
N&R.
Blogs.
The Bellamy-Small copy is the same one later received by the blogs.
It appears only one copy left authorized hands, that of Bellamy-Small.
Where was it between the time it left Bellamy-Smalls hand and when it showed up on the blogs 6 months later? The only other entity known to have a copy between those two times was the N&R.
You do the math.

I think this is the conduit, and I'm pretty sure that's either Hoggard or Jerry Bledsoe coming out of it, and while I like them both I don't want to talk until they hose off.

I happened to be there when an anonymous blogger got to the end of that nasty leakage conduit and snapped this picture. You can see the RMA Report wrapped in plastic in his pants ready to be uploaded to Greensboro101.

Logic would indicate that DBS did not provide the information to the N&R. Why? She gave them permission to clear her name. If she had demanded their confidentiality months ago..then she has now released them from their obligation and JR would have no reason to not tell the world that it was not her.

Can JR's copy be taken legally and he still maintain his silence about who the source was?

Catch 22. Bellamy-Small knows that JR will not release the source, no matter what. Jr does not want to release the source, even with permission, because it will look like he's caving in to the public who thinks he should release the name. To do so would violate JR's principles. So Bellamy-Small is free to "give him permission" knowing he won't do it. This protects him and her.
Just a theory, anyway, but very possible.

JR, you are ignoring the polygraphs and removed staples from her copy well before the leak to the blogosphere. Those were part of the investigation into the leak to your paper.

JR, I admit, you make some good points. So do others, like Sam and meblogin.

Don't forget that apparently dozens of people had access to copies, both city council and city staff. Only council members were polygraphed, and all the polygraphs did was eliminate all but one council member.

jaycee, if our source releases us from our commitment, I have no problem saying who gave it to us.

That is really cool. JR knows exactly what he wrote as he is quite gifted.

DBS has already publicly released the N&R from their commitment to her if one existed. Again, logic says that there is not a commitment between DBS and the N&R.

JR told Jaycee that he had no problem saying who gave it to the N&R with this condition met.....DBS may be the leak to the internet but not to the N&R.

So, JR, you're saying, here and now and for the public record, that Dianne Bellamy-Small is NOT your source?

Nope. I'm saying that if our source releases us from our agreement I'd have no problem saying who gave it to us. To date, that has not occurred. I'd caution you not to leap to conclusions or read anything into what I've written, though, jaycee.

Did Dianne Bellamy-Small not publicly, and in your own newspaper, give you permission to "clear her name?" Sounds like clear permission to me.
If you have her public permission to reveal if she's the source, and you have said here that you'd reveal the source if given permission, then Dianne Bellamy-Small must not be the source, else you would reveal it. If she was, you'd be released from protecting her.
How else should I read this, Mr. Robinson?

You got me. You just seem to jump to conclusions based on things I write. I'm suggesting you not.

You said you'd reveal the leaker if given permission.
DBS gave you permission.
You did not reveal her as the leaker.
How else can anyone read that? If she was the leaker you'd be bound by your plede to reveal it. So she's not.

Jaycee's logic is quite simple and makes absolute sense.

jaycee said... "OK, let's see if I have this right.
N&R receives RMA report. N&R has report for 6 months. RMA report suddenly shows up on the blogosphere."

There is a link that you are missing. Both WFMY and Fox8 had the report before any blogger got hold of it. The RMA copy that was circulated at ConvergeSouth came through one of them - of this I am certain.

Why is no one jumping on them to confirm or deny their source?

jaycee, you nailed the logic. DBS was not the N&R source.

However, I'd be willing to bet big money that the N&R's copy has the same 31 dots as GSO101's and FMY's and mine and yours and Fox8's.

Only one copy was duplicated.

I've offered my caution. We don't communicate with anonymous sources through news releases. Obviously, you guys can believe whatever you'd like.

Thanks for the caution, John. Noted.

What are blogs good for if not informed speculation? ... which is what I offered with my comments.

It still seems strange that no one is calling up Frank Mickens and asking questions as to his sources. I guess I'll have to do it.

Go Whirlies.

Strange to me, Hoggard, is why all of those so interested in our source aren't trying to "connect the dots," using Chief Wray's words, by asking all the bloggers who say they have the report who they got it from. :)

As much as you'd like to blow smoke in someone else's direction John, that question is not nearly as relevant to "law & order" as the identity of original leak to the N&R. The "source" of the leak has always been the City of Greensboro - which was waybeyondnegligent in terms of protecting the security of confidential documents. The question is, who put the legs on it - so it could walk out the building and land in your lap.

Once that happened, public dissemination was just a matter of time.

Hogg's observation is right on the money.

I think the blogosphere was probably set up at "the convergence" . . . played for well-meaning/do-gooding patsies by people whose seats were getting very hot.

You made your deal. You have to lie in it. The trouble is the rest of us do too. And that's one of the many reasons I don't trust your newspaper to objectively and fairly report the news.

You're part of the story now. If there is any such thing as justice, you might wind up on the wrong end of a federal/state subpoena . . . or a civil deposition . . .too.

Of course, there isn't much justice in this state.

Here's why I don't think jaycee's logic actually clears DBS: She didn't give JR permission to reveal if she is the source, she gave him permission to "clear" her name. If she is indeed the source, then it's impossible for JR to actually "clear" her name.

She may not be the source, and then jaycee's logic would probably hold true, but I don't think his argument actually has the effect of clearing her for the reason stated above.

John,

I don't understand what this quote from you means other than what you wrote----

"jaycee, if our source releases us from our commitment, I have no problem saying who gave it to us."

If she were your source you would have said that she
was your source....seems pretty simple to me.

thanks

People you are all missing the "missing link". D. Bellamy-Small leaked the RMA report to the Black Pulpit Forum who then "leaked" the report to the N&R. This information came out last Spring. She is telling the truth when she claims that she did not 'leak' the RMA report to the N&R, which she has claimed often. She is also not lying when she claims not to have had anything to do with the report getting out to the Blogosphere. Lord knows after giving it to the Pulpit Forum enough people had access to it! She hasn't lied one time in any statement that she has made. BUT, no one has asked the ONLY pertinent question: "Ms. Bellamy-Small who did you give a copy of your RMA report to?"

I think we are playing with semantics here.

Has anyone asked DBS whether she GAVE a copy of her report to anyone for any purpose, ALLOWED anyone to copy it, or made a statement WHERE her copy could be found?

Yes, bubba I have been making the same logical suggestion all over the blogosphere and no one seems to WANT to do this because they really don't want to get an answer. D.B-S. hasn't lied yet so perhaps this is the one thing she will refuse to do.

The "Black Pulpit Forum", Brenda?

You seem to know exactly what happened and are willing to drop hints to help the rest of us get to the bottom of it.

What if, when we ask the question you suggest is the ONLY [your caps] pertinent one:

"Ms. Bellamy-Small who did you give a copy of your RMA report to?"

She says, "no one"?

What then?

Brenda,

I had not heard this before. Where did you read this as I would like to review?

It's elementary, my dear Watson. Right JR ? Your leaker had a need to know ( have possession of the report ). Linda Miles, NoTola Brown and a host of others including the City Council members ? This is getting nowhere . For all we know someone with RMA may have provided the N & R with their report. One thing is for sure DBS let her copy loose and it was posted on 101. How many hands it passed through is anybody's guess.

DBS's statements have been very narrow and measured. As a matter of observation/speculation (since John & company are part of the problem now), DBS didn't have to "give" the RMA report to anyone. With a wink and nod, she could have left it on a desk or in a room unattended for someone else to copy and return. Technically, she wouldn't know who did it. She's also be able to (1) say she didn't do it and (2) plead with the N&R to "clear" her name.

But she'd have a good idea who the N&R's source was, and cause to feel guilty . . . certainly reason enough not to submit to a polygraph test.

Of course, maybe she neither winked nor nodded. Maybe she was just incredibly irresponsible and left the thing out unattended for someone else (either in city employ or close to her) to scarf up. Her copy is, after all, what wound up on 101. With regards to other possible "sources", city officials MUST know who had access to the report (before the original leak) besides city council members. How long did people have it? Did they take it home?

As Fred speculated, it could have even been done by an RMA consultant. If that were true, it's very convenient that RMA is conducting the investigation that "outed" DBS.

Sounds like this is becoming a job for the SBI. I'm told all the PD has to do is ask for their intervention. Has that happened?

Mary says, "DBS's statements have been very narrow and measured."

Here's what DBS said back in May in response to this question from the N&R, "...did you share a copy of the investigative report with anyone? If so, why?" DBS: "I have stated I had no part in the leak of the report. ...I have never been the source of any leak..."

Then a follow up question, "Did you give a copy of the report to the News & Record?", elicited this response: "The News & Record knows I am not their source of this leak and I would appreciate them saying that. Which still does not give up who is, if that is their worry."

No so narrow nor measured in my view.

David, we don't have the "same view" on a number of things ("Thank God"). It doesn't make you right and me wrong - or vice versa.

The evidence we currently have says DBS did have something to do with the leak(s) . . . or, if you follow the smoke in the direction JR wants it to blow, at least the GSO 101 leak.

Where the matter of online publication of the RMA report is concerned, based on this post I have questions about your role in that.

It is time for the GSO PD/local DA to ask for an independent SBI investigation of the original leak.

Of course, that means that city leaders would not control the ball . . . and the N&R might be answering some uncomfortable questions.

It would be nice if matters like this could be appealed by "ordinary" citizens to the NC Attorney General's Office. In our state this is not the case (the source of many of my woes). Maybe it's time that changed.

Ok, Mary...

Since, "I had no part in the leak of the report. ...I have never been the source of any leak.", doesn't do it for you, how do YOU think DBS should have worded her statement so's it wouldn't appear so "narrow and measured" in YOUR view?

David, again, the evidence we now have about DBS's "part" in the leak clearly belies her words. I'd like to hear DBS's specific explanation as to why/how HER COPY of the RMA report wound up on GSO 101 . . . and taking the logical steps backwards . . . probably in the N&R's hands.

You're dodging/blowing smoke/parsing words (not to mention carrying water . . . uphill). Not playing today.

Back to the "Word Up" Thread (and your post on it) that I cited earlier. Did YOU have ANY part whatsoever in publishing the RMA report online?

And to follow JR's line of reasoning, do YOU know who did? And if YOU do, would YOU care to share?

Sure Mary, I'll share...

I was given a copy of the report during the same time period as several others (bloggers and non-bloggers) and I made additional copies and gave those to others (bloggers and non-bloggers).

So, if indeed the report was uploaded by a blogger as suggested in the Rhino, the N&R and elsewhere, I may very well have played a part in its propogation to the web.

Sorry you don't want to "play" anymore.

David, now you're pretending you're DBS. Saying that YOU "may very well have played a part" in placing a confidential police report online is not a straight answer to a staight question.

I would assume that "the same time period" you're referring to is during and immediately after Converge South.

For the record (and any future plaintiffs who may be reading), did YOU or did YOU not put the report online?

If YOU did not put the report online, do YOU know WHO did? And if YOU know who did, WHO was it?

WHO gave YOU the report? Do YOU know where that person got it? And WHO did YOU give it to?

These are the kinds of questions law enforcement - specifically the SBI - should be asking DBS. I'll bet the lawyers will be asking someone soon enough.

Playful enough?

Sorry Mary, but you've got the wrong guy.

Sounds like you know. Care to share? After all, JR is the one wanting us to ask these questions. It takes the heat off his seat.

OBTW, if anybody cares why I BURN over this . . . it's because I got FIRED and then SUED for giving my "confidential" two cents (trying to clean up a mess) . . . by people who did not trouble themselves to honor contracts or obey the law. I feel the pain of the police officers who were interviewed and/or named thinking they would be protected.

Of course, the law means nothing if (1) it is not enforced and (2) the local newspapers do not give a rat's tail it wasn't enforced (because they've sold out, are sucking up or are up to their necks in the same muck).

The same kind of people . . . arrogant know-it-alls who thought they knew what was best for everybody else . . . people who thought they were above (or could easily circumvent) the law . . . leaked this document and put it online.

Call me a voter. The casual corruption makes me sick.

Unsolicited advice: Don't assume your assumptions square with reality as they apply to us. For the record, I am feeling no heat, and there is no criminal violation involved in our getting or having the RMA report. (I'm also pretty certain there is no criminal violation involved in releasing the report, either.)

John, the problem with your position right now is that your are covering someone's tail. Your "reality" is that YOU made a deal with someone who knew enough about the law to insist that the report itself never be published.

I/the rest of us have to make assumptions about who that is because YOU won't just tell us the truth.

This report NEVER was supposed to see the light of day. Police officers relied upon that protection for their liveliehoods and very safety. The fact that the report did wind up in your lap (so you could craft stories supporting city management's version of events - a version now challenged by Bledsoe & company at the "tabloid" you love to disrespect) IS a huge part of the story now. It's also a big problem for you . . . if not legally, then in terms of credibility.

I am sure you've talked to lawyers that say that whatever means you employed to get the report was legal. But my own experience is that lawyers often "interpret" the law to their own liking (the reason so many lawsuits get filed) . . . lawyers are often mistaken . . . and lawyers can even lie to serve their clients' best interests.

Your posts here indicate to me that you want the blogosphere at war with itself on this subject (as my sparing with Hogg demonstrates), so the part the N&R played in this is obscured in the muck. You've been giddy with the, "They did it too" argument. "Go ask them."

It's an argument worthy of a pre-schooler caught with his hand in the cookie jar, not a newspaper editor.

John Robinson said:
"...there is no criminal violation involved in our getting or having the RMA report."

Whether or not a criminal violation occurred is decided by a judge and/or jury, not a corporate lawyer or defense attorney. They can only give opinions; opinions for which the client is paying handsomely.
Unless and until it's settled in court you can't make that statement with certainty.