News-Record.com

The council got its pound of flesh, which is what it wanted. It's the equivalent of Monica's dress: proof of the lying ways of the accused over a relatively minor matter. And as with Monica's dress, the whole scenario will rebound to make the offender more popular (as the victim of a witch hunt) among his or her constituency. Everybody wins!

"In a not-so-shocking development, the City Council has fingered one of its own, Dianne Bellamy-Small, as the leaker of the RMA report on the investigation of former Greensboro police Chief David Wray."

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. A collegue agrees.

Roch, you're right. The evidence is only circumstantial. I'll also make the appropriate adjustments.

While you're at it, how about clarifying this sentence: "The council also voterd to release the full RMA document."

Details matter, Allen. Sloppiness is the last thing we need here.

Why investigate the leak? For one thing, the apparent result clears numerous city staff members in the city manager's, city attorney's and police department who have been under a cloud of suspicion (or at least public speculation) that one of them could have done the "dastardly deed." A load off their shoulders, I'm sure, as well as reassurance that the city manager can continue to trust his staff.

Sandy, did the investigation prove beyond a doubt that those staffers couldn't possibly have handled "K-11" at any time?

"Why investigate the leak?" Maybe because the public has a right to know who leaked the report and determine their agenda for doing so. It's that simple. With this much controversy regarding everything that is happening at City Hall and with the GPD, more disclosure is required to understand everyone's motivations.

It wasn't fair to Wray when the RMA was leaked to the N&R and they were permitted to characterize it any way they wanted to. Clearly, that release was an effort to harm Wray. Why? An investigation of the leak might answer some of these questions and help get to the truth about what is really going on with regard to all of these matters.

How does the Nicole Pettiford lawsuit against the city and GPD affect this? It'll be hard to sweep this RMA thing under the rug now. Too many worms are getting out of the can on this thing.

Allen,

Since the News-Record apparently knew that the leaker was Bellamy-Small, and she was a council member, wasn't it your duty to divulge that fact when confronted long ago? You might have saved al ot of people some grief, removing them from suspicion.

Chewie,

The recent forensic investigation only involved downloading and printing a copy of the RMA report that was posted on the Internet that was then physically compared to each of the legal copies of the report that had been collected and locked up when the original leak first became public. This was done in a "blind screening" and Mr. Matheny, the Forensics Document Examiner, told councilmembers that he did not know which copy belonged to whom as he conducted his examinations and comparisons.

Any and all individuals on city staff who had any possible contact with the RMA report (preparing it, making copies for distribution to the city council members, authorized police staff, etc.) were interviewed months ago (with Mitchell Johnson volunteering to go first) to determine if any of them was the possible source of the original leak -- all passed with flying colors. It is my understanding that a review of the 24-hour security surveillance camera tapes showed that no unauthorized person(s) accessed the reports prior to the discovery of the leaks. Once the legal copies were retrieved from councilmembers and city staff who had legitimate access to them and locked up, staffers did not have any access to them.

Ms. Carmany, have you explored the possibility that Dianne Bellamy-Small gave the purloined RMA report to the News & Record, and a N&R staffer was responsible for leaking DBS's copy to the blogosphere? That's the word on the street, anyway.
DBS could legitimately say that she didn't give it to the bloggers, and she'd be telling the truth. The N&R may have been the middleman between DBS and the blogging world.
Think about it.

Sandy,

Thanks for your reply. I'm still confused. And please understand that I'm not trying to be antagonistic here.

You said:

"Why investigate the leak? For one thing, the apparent result clears numerous city staff members in the city manager's, city attorney's and police department who have been under a cloud of suspicion..."

This suggests to me that those individuals were still potential "leaking" suspects, and clearing them was at least partial justification for this additional $7,000 investigation.

But then you said:

"Any and all individuals on city staff who had any possible contact with the RMA report [snip] were interviewed months ago" [emphasis mine], and that "all passed with flying colors."

If all legal copies of the report were collected and locked up "when the original leak first became public", and "a review of the 24-hour security surveillance camera tapes showed that no unauthorized person(s) accessed the reports prior to the discovery of the leaks", then how does the result of the forensic investigation clear "numerous city staff"?

I also heard you say on Fox 8 (I believe) today that the result of the forensic investigation pointed to a document, not a person. How then did the results clear any individuals?

Thanks for any additional clarification you could provide, and thanks for all the time you invest in chasing down rumors and untruths and attempting to keep the record straight and your constituents in the know.

Jaycee,

Dianne, the N&R and/or report poster are the only ones that could accurately respond to your theory, and none of them seem to be talking about it. I don't know of any other way to debunk or verify that theory.

Chewie,

I don't view your questions and search for clarity as antagonistic at all. I will try to be more precise with my choice of words so I hopefully clarify things instead of confusing them further.

From what I have read in newspaper commentary and blog comments and heard in public conversations, it's clear that some in the public did not trust the results of the council's lie detector tests ("faulty, unreliable") or the interviews of certain city staff members ("subjective assessments"). The forensic investigation/comparison of the various copies to the Internet copy provided the option for an objective examination of the report copies that produced a factual conclusion sustained by evidence gathered by a professional using accepted investigative techniques, not on subjective assessments (the interviews).

Thanks for the "document" statement catch as well. To be more accurate, I should have said "confirmed that the copies to which those city staff members had access were not the "source document" for the copy posted on the Internet." Although the forensic examiner stressed the difference between identifying a specific document versus naming an individual person, I lapsed into the wrong terminology anyway. Sorry about that!

For better accuracy in my statement, perhaps I should have used the phrase "confirmed the previous findings" instead of "cleared." But choice of words/semantics aside, the bottom line in my mind is that the results of the lie detector tests and interview coupled with the 24-hour security camera tapes coupled with the findings of the forensic examination of the documents did clear eight council members and the city staff who had access to the RMA report. (And yes, I recognize I'm using that "people" rather than "document" transposal again -- smile.)

I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, but I would welcome a plausible, realistic, non-conspiracy theory challenge to my thinking/conclusions.

I'm not trying to push a "conspiracy" theory, just a logical examination of the facts.
A report showed up in two places; the News & Record and the local blogs.
Only one copy (based on forensic examination, interviews, polygraphs, etc.) was removed from authorized possession. That copy belonged to Dianne Bellamy-Small.
Two possibilities:
1) The same copy was involved in both releases
2) You have another copy missing you don't know about.
If it was the same copy in both releases, then either Dianne Bellamy-Small gave it to both recipients, or the first recipient (N&R) gave it to the second recipient.
If there were more than one copy released without authorization, then you have a problem you haven't discovered.

Sandy,
I hope you will consider clarifying a few more matters. Who interviewed the city staff members who had access to the report, and how was it determined that that they “passed with flying colors?” Were city staff members given polygraph tests? If not, why not? Thanks

The "Leaker" is still out there along with Nicole's real killers. It's time again to launch a massive search of the golf courses of the world to find the real culprits.

John Robinson on his blog this morning as much as said that Dianne Bellamy-Small was NOT the N&R source.
It unfolded this way:
JR said he’d have no problem revealing the source if given permission.
Bellamy-Small has requested publicly that the N&R “clear my name” which is clear permission for the N&R to reveal whether or not she’s the source.
If Bellamy-Small were the source then JR would have permission to reveal that she was and her request for the N&R to clear her name would release JR from his confidentiality committment.
JR won’t comment on whether she is the source. If she was, he’d be bound by his pledge to reveal it.
That means Bellamy-Small is NOT the source for the News & Record.

JR has put himself in the unenviable position of actually eliminating suspects by stating he’ll reveal the leaker’s identity when the leaker gives him permission. All the other “suspects” have to do is line up and “give permission” and when JR stays mum it’s certification that they’re NOT the source, else JR would be bound to identify them.
Interesting situation the N&R has gotten itself into.

Jaycee,

There's no way of knowing if the N&R's copy of the report is the same one that showed up on the Internet or not. Only the N&R could resolve that question by providing their copy for forensic examination, and they have been pretty clear in saying "that ain't gonna happen."

My PURELY SPECULATIVE THEORY WITH NO FACTUAL BASIS whatsoever is that "K-11" is the source document for the N&R's copy.

As an aside, I wonder if anyone at the N&R has taken the time to compare their copy with the Internet version, using the match points listed in the forencsic examiner's chart, just to see for themselves. It would not be purely scientific but it should give them a good idea since they would know what to be looking for. How about it, Allen -- has anyone done that, and would the findings be released if the comparison was done?

If Troublemaker's past reports are accurate, copies were freely circulating in some parts of the community between the time the N&R revealed their possession of the report and its October appearance on the Internet. Returning to my PURELY SPECULATIVE THEORY WITH NO FACTUAL BASIS, I am guessing that someone who received a copy of that freely circulating document passed it along to the hands that eventually posted in on the Internet.

With nothing to base it on but a gut feeling, I don't believe the N&R had anything to gain by posting it themselves and do not suspect anyone there of doing so.

Jerry,

We were told those staff interviews were conducting by an expert professional trained in that sort of thing, but I do not recall whether they were from RMA or some other outside source. That interviewer reported his findings to the city manager. I have no knowledge as to whether or not any staff members underwent polygraphs.

Sorry, that's all I know about it -- you'll have to check with Mitchell Johnson for any further details.

Thank, you Sandy.

So the person who questioned Mitchell Johnson answers to Mitchell Johnson, not to the Council. And from what you say, the Council doesn't even know who this "expert professional trained in this sort of thing" is. So the person telling the Council that Mitchell Johnson "passed with flying colors" is Mitchell Johnson. Has anybody on the Council questioned any of this at all? And why would the Council insist on taking polygraphs themselves without insisting that city staff members who had access to the report do so as well? Is it not possible that there is indeed more than one leaker?

Ms. Carmany, thanks for your comments.

Sandy:
On the News & Record making forensic comparisons, that's a question better addressed by John Robinson, who runs the news department.
But I imagine it would make no sense for him to do so if his intent remains to keep the source confidential.

Allen,
I assumed as much but just had to ask. {smile}

Jerry,
Yes, council was told who the interviewer was -- I'm just not sure my memory is correct and did not want to give a wrong answer. I THINK it was someone with RMA. Mitch is the one who informed council about the results; for all I know, other city staff (legal? police?) may have heard the results as well -- you will have to ask Mitch.

City council members have no jurisdiction over staff except for the manager. If Mitch was confident in the interview results and the security camera tapes, I see no need to administer polygraphs to staff unless someone failed the interview test. It was council's decision to undergo polygraphs versus the interview method themselves. Why? Not sure, the polygraph is what Tom P. suggested and that's what we voted on.

How many leakers? At this point, not having access to the N&R's copy or any of those circulating in the community (according to Troublemaker) to compare, I don't think that question can be answered with absolute certainty. The only conclusion I can comfortably reach based on what I have seen is that "K-11" was the source document for the copy that was posted on the Internet.