News-Record.com

Whew,..I think we can all rest easier now that we know JR/N&R don't believe in agenda driven journalism. You kinda had us worried there John. I think we'll all sleep well tonight. Thank you.

John do you think there is anyone who reads the N&R who thinks that you all not praying, absolutely abjectly praying, that future proceedings will reveal Wray to be the biggest racist in GC history?
You can't be that naive.

I am very happy the judge made the ruling he did. I do hope this goes to trial and everyone is put under oath and has to testify in court as to the truthfulness of their answers. I believe this will do more to shine a light on racial discrimination or lack there of, than any newspaper articles or paid consultant reports.

I want all the people who have made charges of slander, defamation of character and racial discrimination to be put under oath and swear that their testimony is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don't want my information to come from anonymous sources or from an interpretation of the newspaper and their writers. Give me the facts and I will determine what it proves or disproves.

When I read you say that you don't believe in "intensely agenda-driven" journalism I almost fell out of my chair and I bet you laughed uncontrollably just before hitting the POST button.

Sorry, I should have said that you stated you don't "care for" intensely driven journalism. You didn't use the words "believe in".

Sorry, I should have said that you stated you don't "care for" intensely driven journalism. You didn't use the words "believe in".

Why is it that people forget the Rhino bills itself as "... the Newspaper with All the Rumors Fit to Print?" Why, given that masthead, are we even discussing its credibility?

The Rhino states right on the top exactly what its "agenda" is.

So, why the whole "skeet club savage" thing? You're not Bruce Wayne, are you? Because if you are, you scratched my %$#@* car with your %^%#@^# Batmobile.

John, I often ask myself why you bother with this blog when you get slappped around after every other post. You're more patient than I.
But I agree with you on this one. I am engaged in competition with the Rhino, but I think it's a good thing that Bledsoe's notes and tapes stay under wraps -- not for the case, but for journalism.
I spoke with a recent college grad who told me a professor told him to destroy his notes after working on a big story. Not crazy about that advice, but I understand.
Also: Savage, you'd be surprised at how many Greensboro citizens neither know nor care about our police department woes. Ask around. I did, and it was a real eye-opener.

You know, when you look at her picture, she seems like she must be a pretty nice person:

http://www2.whidbey.net/jmboyes/savage-1.htm

Brian, call me crazy, but I don't think JR's masochistic tendency, (which I imagine any journalist has to a certain degree) is outweighed by the fact that his last post on this subject drew 150 hits.

Once again, a plea for those folks out there who who may be critical-thinking / Sophistically challenged to end their obsession with "real" names and just argue your position rather than de-focus on these trivial peripheral items.

I'm shocked that you would think that. But I'd like a second opinion.

FluffyBunny? R2D2isthebomb? greenlantern58?

Would any of you guys like to weigh in?

Mark, just think a minute. Betty Almond, I apologize in advance for using your name as an example, but Mark, I have not heard of, nor had the pleasure of meeting Betty, so therefore her name does not have any particular meaning to me. The way in which the eleven letters that make up her name are arranged don't have any meaning to me, How could they? I also don't have any way of knowing if she's really Betty anyways. She could register as fluffy bunny, and what she says would hold as much weight as "Betty Almond".

It's all about what you say.

Hmm. Well, I tried that. I used to work for JR, and I'd leave anonymous notes around the newsroom insulting him or where he went to college, and he'd always come around the newsroom asking "who wrote these?"

So then I started signing them "Tippy van Pyle" or "Dash Rip Rock," but that was no good, he'd still want to know who really wrote them.

I swear, I don't know what his problem was. Finally, I said, "Look, JR, quit obessing on who wrote these notes -- which I certainly did not write despite the obvious similarities in handwriting.

"The important thing is that they say that your mother apparently wore Army boots. Don't you think it's about time you got her some proper shoes?"

That just seemed to set him off even more.

But come to think of it, I never tried signing them "Betty Almond."

A lot of people who didn't know what they were talking about regarding the law in this case are eating crow.

I'm glad that JR and Brian support the Rhino/Bledsoe victory on this one.

Someone above wrote:

"The Rhino states right on the top exactly what its "agenda" is. "

Yes, exactly. That is what makes all the difference- they admit it, others won't.

So, Mark, let's go deeper, what were you REALLY trying to convey to John by leaving him these notes? Hmmm....

One would think, if his mother didn't wear combat boots, then you're most likely going to be marginalized as a kook. The problem would arise if she really did wear them, then an even greater need to marginalize you would be emergent.

How to respond to such discussion?

Brian, if they don't land a slap then it is really more like they are fanning me on a hot day. Besides, why would I let their critical opinions stop me from voicing mine?

A reminder: If I'm not mistaken, the case hasn't been heard yet. The judge has only ruled on the one discovery request.

Mark? That was you?

John,
Why are you not revealing that you were subpoenaed by the plaintiffs as a witness for this hearing and that you submitted an affidavit on their behalf that was entered into the record?
In the past the newspaper fought every attempt to involve editors and reporters in court cases. Why the change is this case?
A News & Record reporter sat through this hearing, yet you published nothing about it. Was that because the hearing took a turn that didn’t fit your agenda?

So Brian, since you entered the kitchen so to speak, many of us are STILL waiting for the companion "Ten Questions For Mitch Johnson" follow-up to the "Ten Questions for David Wray" feature you most auspiciously initiated sev. mos. ago.

I imagine though, a false claim of racism story would not be contributory street-cred wise towards getting that certication you were seeking at the convention of radical weekly's you wrote about the other week. I mean, let's face it that crowd isn't going to want to read that. But the white cop having it in for the black cops, by golly, one can sell that S*%@!

John,
Didn't mean to run you out of town. One way of avoiding questions, though.

Why are so many of Mr. Robinson's critics so prone to engaging in asinine hyperbole? I don't say this in defense of Mr. Robinson, as I think that there are grounds to criticize him when it comes to the N&R's coverage of the Wray Fray or even his prior attitude towards Mr. Bledsoe (I was there when he called Mr. Bledsoe's contribution to "The Perpetual Motionist" racist, a charge which struck me as nonsense).

But having said that, I find the image of Mr. Robinson fervently praying that David Wray be revealed as a racist (something Hinson and Fulmore's lawsuit against the Rhino isn't going to settle one way or another) risible. Whether one likes John Robinson or not, he's hardly Dr. Evil, and as a professional journalist, he has every reason to agree with the judge's sensible ruling about Bledsoe's notes.

And the claim that Brian Clarey's alleged refusal to go after Mitch Johnson is motivated by his desire to impress or win awards from his fellow "radicals" is idiotic. My opinion of the Wray Fray is probably closer to Sam's than it is to Brian's, but I respect what Brian has to say on the matter a helluva lot more than I do the natterings of some of the people whom I appear to agree with. I'm not talking about Sam (or Roch), but the anonymice. I might be more inclined to jump on their bandwagon if their own clumsy rhetoric didn't make me feel like I'd be hitching a ride on a very short bus.

Yo, ..Eds of local papers who don't-believe-in agenda-driven journalism, where'd ya go? Arby's?

Ian, obviously, we're not personally attacking JR or Brian, we are responding to John's statement that he dislikes "agenda-driven journalism'. He made that statement, I didn't. I think many people in the community find this amusing and disingenuous to the point that people would almost tend to think he's kidding.

Is there a solitary person who reads the N&R or blogs here who thinks the N&R's sympathies lie with David Wray? Let's hear from you.

There has been plenty of opportunity for the N&R and Yes Weekly to present balance. For instance, at the resolution of the latest Great Record Disposal Hoax of 2008, the N&R could have run a headline "Record Hoax by Same Cast of Characters Casts Doubt on Wray Dismissal" .
I mean not quite as glamorus as "Black Book, Black-Ops Against Black Cops" but some things are sexy and some aren't. "Ten Questions for David Wray" works. "Ten Questions for Mitch Johnson" not so much.

What I'm saying is for anyone to believe that they don't have their own agenda is silly. JR saying he doesn't believe in agenda driven journalism is silly.

Jerry, please don't skew the facts. I was subpoened by the plaintiffs. They wanted me to be an expert witness on fact checking. The common practice, Jerry, is not as you describe. The common practice is to fight taking the stand. We responded to this subpoena as we respond to virtually all subpoenas: by submitting an affadavit saying that I did, in fact, write what I wrote in this blog. You imply that this helped the plaintiffs. That's hardly the case and I think you know it.

It is possible that you have forgotten, I suppose, but reporters attend many proceedings they don't write about. A reporter attended the hearing but there was no disposition. We waited for that to publish. This isn't the sort of case that we will write about every filing and every hearing.

I'm afraid to ask what you think my agenda is, but having it stated clearly might explain some of your writing. By the way, the last time you were on this blog, you were asked a couple questions. You never answered. Feel free to take the opportunity now.

For the record, Ian, I never called Jerry's contribution to the fictional serial racist. I said that I thought some passages might be offensive to minorities.

By the way Ian, thanks for implying my idiocy and even more offensive-denigrating my rhetorical skill. You didn't have to get personal, but, I guess it happens. Take comfort in the fact that with the first accusation you would not be alone.

Skeet, two points: some time ago you said you went back and read what we wrote about the Wray case and found it fair. At least that's how I read it. I apologize if I misread it. What's changed?

Second, if you read what I wrote in the post it says I don't care for the Rhino's or Jerry's intensely agenda driven journalism. It doesn't say the N&R doesn't have agendas. But to do journalism expressly to get someone fired or to restore someone's reputation isn't what I can support.

I read Lorraine's series. I did not find the word's she wrote to be biased against David Wray. She used hearsay from people who obviously wanted to get rid of David Wray for whatever reason.

The way the series was headlined, packaged and edited it unfortunately gave the appearence of a witch hunt. I realize that this may have been contributed to largeley by David Wray's reluctance to talk with Lorraine or the N&R for whatever reason, so the articles were inherently laoded aginst Wray from the get-go There was also very little interviewing of Wray supporters, that I recall. This all should have been taken into account and the resultant appearence of bias adjusted for, perhaps via more prudent editing.

anon was me

Okay, John. I'm starting to see your point. Agenda-driven jounalism=otay. INTENSELY agenda-driven jounalism=bad. Like there is probation and double-secret probation. I'm gettin' it. Be patient.

So there we have it, folks.

It's just this week's edition of "we stand behind our story" coupled with the requisite "who, us?" protestation.

The only thing missing is Ms. Ahearn, which is quite a shame.

I really enjoyed the thought of her being a regular in these ongoing conversations.

Skeet:
Sorry, I'm out of town as well.
But to answer your question: When we have questions for Mitch Johnson, we call and ask them. He generally obliges.
Wray, on the other hand, has refused to be interviewed by anyone but Jerry Bledsoe. Hence the editorial with the 10 questions.

To Brian Clarey:

Can you really blame David Wray for not granting you an interview?

No, I don't think you are getting it, Savage. It's not the intensity -- although they certainly have tenacity. It is the agenda they are pursuing. Purposely trying to get someone fired? For two years now? That seems unfair to me.

I don't think anybody has to work to get Mitch Johnson fired. As pointed out in the Rhino ( I know, an obviously tainted source.) Mitch has painted himself into a corner where if he maintains Wray persued a racist agenda, then the city, his employer, will have to pay out big time to the pending race-related lawsuits . This will cause a tax revolt, set back GB/GC race relations fifty years, and severely damage Yvonne's administration. If Mitch maintains Wray wasn't prejudiced, he hurts the lawsuits and has to sort of recant some of the things that he implied or said about Wray in the past, then he'll have the race-players mad at him. He is crazy if he doesn't resign.

Brian, if you asked any questions of Mitch, don't keep them to yourself, publish them, along with the answers. If you did, I missed it. Everybody knows, if you asked any hard questions of either party, they are going to say they can't comment due to legal proceedings. It's just that you published some questions for Wray as sort of a symbolic gesture, why can't you do the same for Mitch?

So John, Woodward and Bernstein were crazy ("tenacious") back in 72-73 to try and get someone fired.. OOOOKKKAAAAYYYYYY.

I'd suggest you get a dictionary and look up the definition of tenacious. Then, I'd suggest you cite the source in which you purport that Woodward and Bernstein were trying to get someone fired.

I actually wish you would enter Johnny Land, skeet. It would be closer to the real world. (The previous comment is from the fearless skeet club who changes his sign on whenever he feels that he needs it to appear as if there are more people who think like he does. Oh, wait, some people might think I'm outting him. Sorry.)

Brian, certainly you don't think Mitch's reasons for getting rid of Wray are cystal clear to the citizenry from media accounts to date.

John, the only choice I have for daily newspaper coverage of the GB Follies is to enter Johnny Land. Johnny Land is cool. I mean, imagine how boring it would be to have a newspaper, like probably ninety-nine percent of those out there, that would support it's police chief (barring exposure as a crook or pedophile maybe) instead of facilitate canning him. I mean, Wray got hired by the feds ( not that this is necessarily a reflection of character-look at some of the guys doing Iraq security). Do you think whoever hired him would want to risk their job and do so if he had the slightest question the guy was a racist.

Johnny Land is Cool.

"Facilitate canning him." Interesting perspective, skeet.

I really like your faith in the judgment of federal hiring officers. See this story today? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-justice25-2008jun25,0,1485683.story

So John, you don't think Woodward and Bernstein smelled blood, knew where things might lead , and tenaciously persued it ?

So, John you don't think Lorraine's series affected public opinion or helped grant Mitch public realtions license or legitimacy towards canning Wray? If not, what was the whole point of the series?

I have to hand it to you, savage. When so many others post attack comments and then run away, you stick with it.

What I think about Woodward and Bernstein doesn't matter. You are the one who made the statement. I just asked you to back it up.

Lorraine didn't write a series. I'm sure it did inform the public. That's what we do. Trying to get someone fired is what the Rhino's series is intended to do.

Wayne, I'm not speaking for Brian on this, but weren't you critical of me for not granting an interview to Jerry?

Yes I did criticize you for not granting Jerry an interview. I like Jerry and I like David Wray and I like you. However, I DO believe that the N&R and Yes Weekly have been unfair to both Mr Wray and Jerry. I strongly believe both papers practice " Political Correctness ", the same way it was practiced at Duke last year.

John

You'll note I have NOT criticized Lorraine Ahearn. I disagree with her a lot but i think she's a great person and she's a yankee so I give her a lot of slack

John, I would hardly characterize what I've said here as attacking anybody. It seems anytime I start a dialectic with you, you perceive it as an attack. I understand you having raw nerves about this issue. It would seem that a situation has eventuated where the N&R is standing with their pants down around their ankles in centerfield, right in the middle of a Grasshoppers game, and the only way they can be pulled back up is by Wray being proved a virulent racist by future due process. Obviously, not a good siutation to be in with facts that have been made public to date.

What we have in this city with the Wray issue is a huge Mexican standoff that has eventuated by 25 years of a G-Boro commandeered by race politics instead of people politics. It has come to a head like a big old zit on the end of a nose on the night before the prom.

I commend you for staying with it. Like Brain said, you don't have do this. You could close it or just not post on this or disappear like some other blog-meisters have done.

The only way out of this is by people talking.

I think the fact that the judge is waiting so long to make an "official" ruling on his decision means something big is coming. If it was as cut and dry as the cool-aid drinkers scream, the decision would have been signed and handed in on its due date. The Rhinosaurus and its dwindling alliance has reason to be nervous - . They were wrong...

I wouldn't read too much into that Charles. Sometimes judges just like to take their sweet time:

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/NRSTAFF/54066161

In all seriousness, I'd hope the judge is taking his time just wants to make sure the legal reasoning in his written order is sound, so that if it goes up on appeal it'll have a better chance of surviving.

"...25 years of a G-Boro commandeered by race politics instead of people politics. It has come to a head like a big old zit on the end of a nose on the night before the prom."

Probably the most eloquent and spot-on assessment of local politics I've ever read! Kudos to the Savage!

Charles, could you elaborate on the "Cool-Aid Drinkers" a bit? Are they the same as the "Stuck in the Mudders"?

John, I presume that above your statement that Lorraine "didn't" write the series was a Freudian Slip and you meant to say she did. ???

You're too kind, Jaycee.

ditto what Jaycee said. shee genius that Skeet Club

oops should be should be "sheer" genius

SKS You have said it best!

Wayne, what I was really wondering is how you would give Chief Wray a pass on presumably not talking with a publication he thinks would treat him unfairly, when I didn't get one for doing the same thing.

Savage, I will take you at your word that your method of commenting is not an attack on the N&R or me. I guess conjuring up an analogy of the N&R with its pants down in centerfield and creating some goofy racist narrative is your idea of reasoned discussion. Forgive me. If you read some of the comments above yours and don't think they are attacks, I wonder what your definition of the word is.

But that's OK. What my real point was that you're still here and I applaud you for that.

Lorraine did not write a series or serial in the way the term is commonly used. She followed the news and wrote stories about it. They weren't planned out to run every week with a definite beginning and end. Jerry is writing a series. We didn't.

John, accusing me or any publication or anyone in town of creating or initiating a goofy racist narrative, in light of whatever type body work you want to call Lorraine's multiple Wray articles, is again kind of silly. I mean, is it just me? Do you not see how people would scratch their heads when you say something like this?

The centerfield /pants down thing is a figure of speech and does not mean to imply literal exhibitionist tendency on the part of anyone at the N&R.

So a series can only be a "series" if it is planned and has an pre-determined end point. I guess my mom did not have a series of children. John you are re-writing the book on a lot of stuff.

Johnny Land!

Hey Trix.

I left the money on the nightstand. I'm kind working now. I told ya.

NEWSFLASH:

Greensboro N&R editor John Robinson decreed today that the World Series is not really a series because it doesn't have a predetermined length, seeing that the "group" of games can be comprised of between four to seven games.

He suggested instead it be changed to "The Multiplicity of Season Ending Games.

The owners and league president stated they would consult on the matter.

One of the owners was heard to mutter; "How much longer to we have to listen to this kind of crap just because of a "group" of articles was written about cops in Greensboro and this Robinson guy goes to any length of absurdity trying to defend them?"

Gee, Savage. I'm glad you're not attacking me. As you referred to it as a dialectic, I guess your comments are what you consider logical argumentation?

OK, redefine the term series however you like. Right now I have to go edit our "series" of stories on the city council meeting. We started it in 1953.

Obviously you even talking about the meaning of the word "series" above was an attempt NOT to focus on the essense of the question I asked you about whether Lorraine's piece helped grant license to Mitch to get rid of Wray. Although you gave a quick answer saying 'It did inform the public" you instead went off tangentially about the word series when you obviously knew what I was taking about. You do this over and over again and then complain when people make light and kid you about it. You have the thinest skin on this. You must have led a sheltered life to construe the bit above about the World Series as attacking you. You're just geeting needled. You must have led a sheltered life.

Okay John, we'll return to a more academic vein, as perhaps was your original intent when you strarted this thread- your unbelief or dislike for " "intense agenda driven journalism".

So, as his editor, you would have told James Thurber to lay off Boss Tweed?

You so misread my comments, Savage. I don't much care what anonymous commenters say about me. So if it seems as if I'm thin-skinned, it may be more like bored with the goofy questions and attacks. Oh, no, sorry. Needling. And then I thought you were trying to have a "dialectic" with me.

It seems to me as you're the one obsessed over the term series.

But to your point. I have no clue. You ask me to put myself into someone else's thinking. You guys presume to do that in these comments all the time and you're wrong 99% of the time. The last thing I'm going to do is offer an opinion of what might have granted Mitch license.

James Thurber? Boss Tweed? See, I don't have a clue when you're being serious. So I guess I'll assume you never are.

Again you refuse to answer any direct questions. You continuously de-focus from any meaningful discussion by focusing on peripherals. You have some type of double standard where it's like you answer questions as if you are at a McCarthy hearing. When somebody calls you on it and in turn re-acts to your evasiveness with maybe a flip comment or two, you start to whine and say they are attacking you. You throw out b.s. then holler "attack" when somebody gives you b.s. back.

Maybe you just need a vacation from this, kind of like Brian mentioned.

John, I apologize for getting my cartoonists mixed up. It was Thomas Nast and Boss Tweed. Now can you answer the question? Should Thomas Nast's editor have prohibited Nast's intense-agenda journalism to try to weaken Mitc.. er I mean, Boss Tweed?

Don;t you think history would be very different if there were lots of editors throughout history who would prohibit intense agenda- driven journalism?

Maybe it's a style thing, savage. You want me to comment on things I know nothing about then get mad when I won't. Did our coverage of the investigation of Hinson grant Mitch license to "get rid of Wray" as you say? Ask Mitch.

Nast and Boss Tweed? I don't know and don't care. Woodward and Bernstein? I don't know and don't care.

Are you asking if we shouldn't have more newspapers that say, hmmm, I think this is wrong and I'm going to get so-and-so fired for it? And then hammer it week after week for two years with no let up in sight? No, I don't think so. We have enough of those.

But I must note that I didn't refer to intense agenda-driven journalism being prohibited. You did.

So, what's your next question? Ask it directly and I'll try to answer it without focusing on what you call peripherals.

You are correct. You said you disliked it, not that you would probihibit it. I was wrong and put words in your mouth.

Direct question: I know both you and Lorriane are decent human beings with some type of sense of justice. You had to know the articles re: David Wray would be somewhat inflammatory even if Lorraine was just relating what she heard on the street. It just seems there are missing pieces to the puzzle. It just seems like with what's been put out to the public so far, that it's hard to imagine you would go out on a limb so to speak unless you have some kind of inside info.

Like I said before; 99% percent of daily newspapers, when faced with a situation where a new police chief comes to town and recieves a mandate, like David Wray did form Ed Kitchen, to clean up the Dept, then proceeds to try and do it, encounters difficulties- as one would assume he would, that the average local paper is still going to give the guy some leeway. It just doesn't look like this was granted to David Wray. My question is do you have inside info that you can't or won't share with us?

No to your question.

I don't agree with your presumptions leading up to the question, either, except for the part about Lorraine and I being decent. :)

I'm not sure what limb we went out on, and we reported much more than just what "heard on the street," which makes it sounds as if we did nothing but report idle gossip.

I'm not sure what leeway you are thinking we should have granted Chief Wray, either.

So, you don't think that; say the the avg. daily, the solitary daily mind you, say like in Wineburg Ohio, printing a feature headlined by "Black Book- Black Op-s, Black Cops" etc. (please grant me some leeway here, I'm not recalling the exact headline that was used), would not be considered going out on a limb, lacking unequivocal evidence that the allegations contained within the article were true?

I mean, if I were the police chief in this town, and was trying to clean up the dept. and you printed something like this, with only the evidence that has been made public about Wray to date, I'd kind of be pissed. I mean, if your own paper is going to shaft you, what's the point? Might as well head on down the road, like to Tennessee.

Wineburg, Ohio? Where do you get this stuff?

I'm not sure which headline and which story you're referring to. We did have a headline: "'Secret police' use black ops on black cop" but I'm not aware that anything in the story was not true. (The existence of the black book didn't come out until after Wray resigned.)

The chief was quoted in that story confirming that a tracking device was placed on an officer's car as part of an investigation.

I don't know what you think we're supposed to do with the information. Not publish it? It's not like police officers didn't know about it. And it is not like things were going great in the department at the time anyway.

I can't imagine Chief Wray headed to Tennessee because he thought the newspaper was out to get him.

You know, to turn it back to you, the Rhino set out to get Mitch Johnson fired six months or so after he got into office. Do you think that's fair?

So John, you think they should have come to Hinson ahead of time and told him the device was going to be on his vehicle-then it wouldn't be a "black-op". It just strikes me as wierd that a newspaper would seemingly support the investigee intead of the investigators that were apparently acting under probable cause. I just think it would be very unusual and that the avg newspaper in the avg American town would balk at doing it, like I said, baring unequivocal evidence that the chief is not acting or has a history of acting inappropriately, which you claim you had no knowledge of.

No, I don't think that. But I don't think they should be surprised that a newspaper thinks it is news when a lieutenant finds a tracking device placed there by his own department. You say we seemingly support the investigee. I say we weren't, other than reporting the story.

While you're here, you didn't answer my question about Mitch. Is that fair?

Like I was saying above: If a "black op" is any investigation where the people being investigated are not aware they are being investigated then there are a heck of a lot of "black ops".

I can't speak for the Rhino having it in for Mitch Johnson six mos. after he got into office. I'm not privy to the particulars of this feud-that's why I asked above if you had any inside info regarding the whole Johnson/Rhino/ N&R/Wray thing?

What other dept should have put the tracking device on Hinson's car?

You're asking me questions I can't answer because I don't know the answer. I'm not aware if the police department asked us not to report on the tracker. But I think it is unrealistic to think that any newspaper would kill the story because it was an undercover operation. After all, the officer being investigated knew all about it.

The officer investigated I'm sure let people know all about it. One would be interested to see if he claims, maybe in a lawsuit, he was publically humilated by the device, even though he's the one who called attention to it, although one can't imagine him doing that.