News-Record.com

Allen Johnson wrote:
"It's a shame, however, that Johnson has been so thoroughly vilified based on shreds of truth liberally mixed with rumor and innuendo."

The same could be said of Chief Wray.

Physician heal thy self

"The same could be said of Chief Wray"

And it's a shame that this newspaper has played such an important part in making that happen.

Why has the N&R never challenged in print the implication that Hinson was investigated because he is black. To prove this you would need instances where allegations of corruption were made against white officers and there was a decision not to investigate them because they were white.

The tracking devices etc. appear to have been handled poorly by people who most likely watch too much TV.

The "black book" appears to have been created as a "portable line-up" if you will in an investigation that allegedly involved a black perpetrator. If had to be done over again, it would be prudent to include white officers in with the black because maybe the victim didn't get a good look at her assailant or the light was bad at the crime scene, even though the alleged assailant possibly had prior contact with the alleged victim.

Some good reporters and editors with rocks could have jumped all over this story and took it apart years ago.

Out of political correctness and the lay of the land you sat by and picked around the edges and let this stuff fester an now you are saying let's heal.

What you have is a police chief who looks like was railroaded because he was investigating an officer who happened to be black, which in GC makes you a racist, coupled with a City Mgr. city govt. and a daily newspaper without the fortitude to stand up to race scammers.

Let the Healing:
I would say we did. Separate investigations have cleared Hinson, or at least not found him guilty of anything. As we reported.
Even investigators specifcally hired by Wray for that job turned up no proof.

People go on about Hinson being cleared multiple times by different entities. Chief Wray apparently still had a hunch and he was playing it, which is in essense what you pay police for. If you don't pay the man to play his hunches and his gut, why even hire him.

The black book again appears to have been a necessary evil. Since the investigation was secret out of necessity, you could hardly go and round up a bunch of policemen to stand in a live line-up without arousing suspicion that there was an investigation going on.

"I don't know precisely what that says. But it isn't good."

It could very well say "The N&R selective reporting on this issue has divided the racial communities.”

“But it isn’t good.” I couldn’t agree more – in fact it’s sad and demoralizing. I wish I had the answers, but they’re beyond me. A good starting point would be 100% public disclosure of everything related to Johnson/Miles/Wray/Hinson/Fulmore/Homestead/letters/recordings/secret basement meetings/et al. “Letting Go” could be palatable if this were to happen.

Has Johnson been vilified? I'd have to say yes, yes he has. The real question is was his vilification justified?

Has Wray been vilified? I'd have to say yes, yes he has. The real question is was his vilification justified? In Wray's case the body of evidence available to the public indicates that Wray was shafted.

"To prove this you would need instances where allegations of corruption were made against white officers and there was a decision not to investigate them because they were white."

I don't see any evidence of Wray investigating the two officers recently indicted.
As for the News & Record, we've never said Wray was racist. We have said that he appears to have lost the confidence and trust of the city manager.

Milo:
What body of evidence is that?

Savage:
If Wray was playing a hunch (for the third time), was it really necessary or appopriate for him to implicate Hinson in a misleading news conference?
Now, I'm not saying Hinson is a Boy Scout. I don't know.
But to step out that far based in a hunch seems like bad personnel policy to me.

Allen, hacking into a computer. Certainly a violation of privacy, probably stupid and probably a violation of police procedure (no search warrant), again possibly done by personell who watch too much TV, but corrupt?

Allen, could you elaborate on the highlights of the "misleading news conference". I might have missed that one.

It all depends on why and whether he was acting on his own. And whatever else he might or might not have been directed to do, right?

The one where he referred to connecting dots on a multi-jurisidictional investigation that involved Hinson.

Right, Allen. If Wray told them to hack the computer then that's a problem.

To be fair to Wray, and we definitely should be, we don't know that.
It just seems odd that these guys would do these things on their own.
A lot more will come out in court.

Also Allen, the implication that Hinson was investigated because he was black was made long before Sanders et al were indicted.

That was an allegation made by some of the officers themselves, as we reported.

So the Johnson doctrine on Wray is that we should move on, get past it, or risk racial division? And as evidence, you point to 1979, which we're never allowed to get past, which must be constantly revisited, rehashed, recirculated so that healing can occur in some quixotic quest for common ground?

Common ground isn't likely in either case, which is why we need to move past both of them.

My take: Wray had it in for Hinson, whom he regarding (with some reason) as a sloppy, ethically lazy, insubordinate, and potentially corrupt cop. He pushed (without overstepping) the boundaries of reasonable investigation in order to nail him. Hinson, IMO, is ethically lazy and insubordinate, but not really corrupt and with some good intentions. In playing the race card, he politically outmaneuvered Wray, and used the N&R to do so. The N&R, always eager for a divisive race melodrama, was happy to oblige. The Rhino, always happy to provide a counternarrative, did so with a vengeance. And so we stand with a sloppy set of facts and two crystal clear narratives.

Well-conceived comment, Brian. Interesting theory. Now, how is it that the N&R aided and abetted Hinson?
And why isn't T&R a good analogy about us having trouble in this city with civil discussion?

For one thing, the N&R apparently mischaracterized the "black book." It made the story, from day one, a story about a white police chief investigating a black cop (emphasis on race): it was built, in other words, on Hinsonian premises, much as Bledsoe's series was based on Wrayian premises (a race-neutral police chief investigating a crooked cop of some race).

The TRC is a perfect analogy of us having trouble with civil discussion. "Getting through, then past" 1979, however, is a position you've strenuously avoided. We keep having to go back to the past IN SEARCH of common ground that never seems to materialize. I suggest that it won't.

The "black book" was the smoking gun that was held up here. It was the thrust of the whole argument that it was a race thing and it can be seen there was a simple explanation for it.

One thing that is forgotten, going after allegedly dirty cops is a nightmare. You're going after people who know the system inside and out. Who know how to cover tracks and and slide through the cracks. How likely is it some outside agency is going to find wrongdoing and should the chief have abided 100% by what they told him. Going after corrupt cops is not like going after the usual Einsteins who are out there in the community commiting most of the crimes. Extra-regular measures understandably may have to be used.

As the paper said this morning the previous mayor wanted the dept cleaned up and from all apperences the man tried to do it.

Skeet Club Savage wrote:
"One thing that is forgotten, going after allegedly dirty cops is a nightmare."

Especially when they have the Simpkins PAC, an outspoken and influential black lawyer, and a liberal N&R reporter on their side.

What paper? Which previous mayor?

And how did the Simkins PAC get involved?

I thought you ran a front page story on this today, quoting the previous mayor charging Chief Wray with a mandate to clean up the Dept.

I could be wrong. Might have been the Rhino- you know that paper where local drug dealers don't like the content and then mark the publishers/columnists for death, for some strange reason.

That's really what will help us heal and restore faith in the N&R-when local criminals put out contracts on Allen, Doug and Robbie instead of giving "Attagirls" to Lorraine.

That would be Carolyn Allen, would it not?

"She said she only approaches white customers."
She said it? Or she was prodded to say it?
Why was she asked what color customers she approaches?
It's deja vu all over again.

Allen,

"Milo:
What body of evidence is that?"

The one that doesn't seem to exist. We've had nearly 2 years of investigation and there's absolutely nothing to tie Wray to anything. You could quote the RMA report, but I'd be seriously shocked if you did so -- Ahearn would, but I can't see you running with it.

The "black book" is the N&R's baby.

Thank you for the interaction/comments.

I think we need to look on the bright side of this-The one perhaps good thing that could possibly get Greensboro and the N&R some favorable press out of this is we could set a national prescendent that from now on; all ID line-ups, whether they be binder/"book" / lap-top or live line-ups, despite the fact that the victims state that their assailant was a certain race, the line-ups should still include people of other races, since the victim might not know what the heck they are talking about or may even be...biased. It would become one of the hallmarks of criminal justice procedure sort of like "The Miranda" rights etc. It would be called the News& Record rule or the "Ahearn" rule etc.

I think we can run with this.

Tony Wilkins:
She was specifically asked that question by the reporter.
It's a legitimate question, given the racially charged nature of this controversy.
And her answer confirms that.

Allen, the "racially charged atmosphere" was created and is being perpetuated by the N&R. The question to the cafe owner is an example of this continuing pot-stirring.
Please show any evidence uncovered by the SBI or the AG's office to support a "racial" component to Chief Wray's actions.

How's that, Jaycee? The newspaper reported concerns expressed by a number of officers.
RMA found justification for at least some of those concerns.
So did the SBI.
So did the EEOC.
That's quite a wide-ranging conspiracy, isn't it?

Allen, the N&R reported concerns that have not been substantiated. The "Black Book" is a good example of something invented by the N&R and continually pounded into the heads of your readers until it gained some sort of legitimate acceptance regardless of the facts.
RMA was hired to find evidence to support the position of the city leaders, not to conduct an unbiased investigation. Their report reflects what they were paid to find.
Please cite where the SBI found racial bias for Chief Wray's actions.
EEOC findings were a reiteration of unsubstantiated claims, not facts found from independent investigation.

Jaycee:
You undermine your own arguments. On what do you base your assertions about RMA, which you state as incontrovertible fact?
This is a reputable company run by experienced investigators.

I base my assertions on my experience as an investigator and in supervising investigators, both for government agencies and in the private sector.
The report is poorly written, the techniques used to conduct the investigation are not in keeping with professional standards, and the investigators appear to "assume" certain facts with no supporting evidence. The report is rife with opinion rather than facts, and the investigators draw conclusions rather than presenting facts for the client to use in determining the conclusion.
It appears to me, based on my experience and in discussing this subject with other experienced investigators, that RMA began their work with a foregone conclusion in mind and sought evidence to support that conclusion. It's not surprising at all that RMA delivered a finished product to Mitch Johnson that neatly served his purposes.
Please cite where the SBI found racial bias for Chief Wray's actions.

And how would you, as an experienced investigator, evaluate Wray's use of special intelligence to investigate other officers?
Is that not a violation of standard practice?

jaycee said:
Allen, the "racially charged atmosphere" was created and is being perpetuated by the N&R.

Allen said:
How's that, Jaycee? The newspaper reported concerns expressed by a number of officers.

I'll split the difference. The officers created the atmosphere and the N&R perpetuated it. It's a symbiotic relationship, because the N&R will jump on a race story like a fat kid on a cookie.

Witness: TRC, Duke rape, Guilford "race beating," etc., etc. The N&R religiously adheres to this practice. Even when what's-his-name calls for a boycott of the N&R based on the paper's racism, the N&R puts it on the front page.

But in this case as in others, the N&R is not, I suggest, merely "reporting concerns" from a passive posture: it is reproducing biases and using them as the basis for storytelling. It doesn't see the bias because institutionally it shares the bias: if "race" is spoken out loud, the story is about race.

Did Hinson believe himself to be the victim of racial discrimination? Doubtlessly. Did Wray perceive race to be part of his investigation? I doubt it. Most whites perceive race to be a fiction; most blacks experience it as a reality.

The question then becomes to what degree race actually "is" part of the story. The problem with the N&R's reporting is that it never asked that question or considered it critically. And this led to shoddy reporting, most notably surrounding the "black book"--the point of contact between the racial rubber and the textual road that everyone, Mitch Johnson especially, is now backing away from.

Allen suggests that the paper was obliged to report concerns expressed by the officers. So if I call racism (as Hinson, the Duke stripper, the Arabs at Guilford, whats-his-name boycotting the N&R), the paper is categorically obliged to report my concerns? I'd argue for a higher standard: that a threshold of evidence for the racial dimension of the claims be met before those concerns are reproduced publicly.

If you're going to feed the fire of racial division--and the divisiveness of the incident would be nil without the N&R's participation--you need to ensure that you have legitimate fuel.

Jaycee:
The SBI didn't cite motives. It merely reported the violations it found, which, rightly or wrongly, did not contradict the RMA findings or the city's concerns.

For the record:
I've never said or written that this issue is about race, nor do I know, or even believe that David Wray is a racist.
In my dealings with him, as I have written, he seemed anything but.
This issue, as I see it, isn't even whether Wray broke the law.
It's whether he was an effective manager, who inspired the trust and confidence of his officers and his boss.
That's what this has been about all along.
As for the "black book," I've heard and read all kinds of allegations and explanations.
What concerns me most is whether Wray was truthful about it.
Johnson says he was not.

This is a good discussion. I have a lot more to add and I'm sure you do as well. But I'll be dropping out for a little while to deal with some Friday deadlines.
I'll be back ....

This is a good discussion. I have a lot more to add and I'm sure you do as well. But I'll be dropping out for a little while to deal with some Friday deadlines.
I'll be back ....

Allen: This issue, as I see it, isn't even whether Wray broke the law.
It's whether he was an effective manager, who inspired the trust and confidence of his officers and his boss.
That's what this has been about all along.

If you're taking race out of the equation, that's fine with me. I agree. And I think Wray's political ineptitude is pretty clear: he couldn't work within the political constraints of his position. He'd call it principle, probably, but it could also be called stubbornness or intransigence.

But the story in your paper was not about his effectiveness as a manager. It was about a white police chief using a black book to discriminate against black cops. To say that it's "been about" managerial effectiveness all along is to say something different from what Ahearn and Townsend reported.

Allen, I'll comment on a couple of your questions and statements.
"...Wray's use of special intelligence to investigate other officers? Is that not a violation of standard practice?"
Not at all. There is nothing that forbids officer "X" from investigating crime "Y." Officers may be used at the department's discretion to perform any duty within the scope of their authority and the law.

You said that the SBI found a basis for "concerns" expressed by officers. Racial concerns? I'd like to see where any SBI report substantiates that.

You also seem to equate the SBI report, which you say didn't' "cite motives" with the RMA report, which obviously does. Apples to oranges. That's one reason the RMA report is given little credence by many experienced in investigative work.

I could also reiterate brian444's comments about the race-baiting generated by the N&R on this issue, but he's said it far more clearly than I can. So I'll just say, "Yeah, what brian444 said!"

Whoa.
The standards you and Brian suggest are impossible and, with all due respect, absurd.
If I read you correctly you're saying we shouldn't write or publish any allegations until we have concrete, unimpeachable, absolutely irrefutable proof.
Geez, by that standard, there'd be no Barry Bonds steroids stories.
There'd be no Blackwater stories.
If a sizable number of police officers suggest a pattern of discrimination and file EEOC complaints, we are obligated to cover that.
We're also obligated to seek out all sides of the story and to report our findings in as balanced and responsible a way as we can.
As for The News & Record editorial board, we have not written one syllable since this story broke that says those allegations are true. We have said they are troubling. And they are.
As I wrote before, the most important issue here is Wray's fitness and judgment as chief and his effectiveness as a manager.
Not whether he is a racist.

PS. The Rhino runs a 1,484-chapter series called "Cops in Black and White" and you accuse US of race-baiting. Sheesh.

Allen Johnson wrote:
"As I wrote before, the most important issue here is Wray's fitness and judgment as chief and his effectiveness as a manager. Not whether he is a racist."

You've obviously not read any of Lorraine Ahearn's articles.

"It's a shame, however, that Johnson has been so thoroughly vilified based on shreds of truth liberally mixed with rumor and innuendo."

Substitute Wray for Johnson in that sentence, and you get: "It's a shame, however, that Wray has been so thoroughly vilified based on shreds of truth liberally mixed with rumor and innuendo.

Interesting.

Allen, your following two statements seem to contradict each other. And, why would a reporter legitimately ask a question like that, unless they wanted to lead the person to make such a statement? Is that considered good journalism by your newspaper? So which is it, the News-Record thinks that this case is about race or not? But, then, isn't it always about race at the good ole News and Record?

"She was specifically asked that question by the reporter. It's a legitimate question, given the racially charged nature of this controversy."

""As I wrote before, the most important issue here is Wray's fitness and judgment as chief and his effectiveness as a manager. Not whether he is a racist."

I guess you best declare this discussion to have run its course and close it out to further discussion just like your boss, John Robinson did on his blog. It's obvious that nothing productive is coming out of this discussion. As the RMA Paid-Gun said, What is it about Greensboro that it just can't let go.

Allen, who are you kidding? If the N&R cared about "fitness and judgement and effectiveness as managers" as a criteria meriting removal from office, you'd be advocating firing at least 3/4 of GC politicians, elected and otherwise.

Allen,
You state of RMA:
"This is a reputable company run by experienced investigators."
That may be but according to their own website this is the only investigation of this kind the company has performed.
Being informed on how and who chose RMA might be a story into itself.

I told Allen and Doug Clark at the get to gather, I knew nothing of this, still don't.However,the NR and WFMY was getting the blame for firing Wray.Many police in Greensboro, say Hinson was not doing his job. The story goes, that the black leaders (so called) where po a Wray because, he would not hold tea parties for them and let them tell him how to run the police dept.
So they when to the NR and Wfmy, and said sic em. True, not true, I have no clue. I know the NR is far left news paper, thats their right. WFMY is just plain LOCO. I blocked them out years ago.
If its was not church day, I tell you why, in the same way , I told them. Not, I would never use those words, where children, may read them. Tee times 8: am Monday, then I tell you about WFMY on my first, 3 putt green.

Me: "I'd argue for a higher standard: that a threshold of evidence for the racial dimension of the claims be met before those concerns are reproduced publicly."

Allen: "The standards you and Brian suggest are impossible and, with all due respect, absurd.
If I read you correctly you're saying we shouldn't write or publish any allegations until we have concrete, unimpeachable, absolutely irrefutable proof. Geez, by that standard, there'd be no Barry Bonds steroids stories. "

You're not reading correctly or carefully. I said a "threshold of evidence," not "concrete, unimpeachable, absolutely irrefutable proof." How you get from one to the other is beyond me.

Your standard, I take it, is no standard at all. If claims are made, then they must be reported. This squares nicely with the "he said, she said" nature of contemporary journalism, which is generally too lazy to look into claims but never averse to printing them. For the record, an EEOC investigation would meet my threshold, allegations themselves would not.