News-Record.com

The latest development in the Wray Fray is arguably one of the most important and telling developments the fray has had to offer so far.

Last month, City Manager Mitch Johnson stated in a sworn affidavit that the infamous black book was not infamous after all. The book that was previously described in media reports as a racial profiling tool that was used inappropriately on numerous occasions is now a legitimate investigate tool? Seriously?

What about WFMY's early 2006 report?

"City Manager Mitchell Johnson claims the special intelligence division used the book to conduct bogus investigations of black officers. He says it contained photos of 19 black officers and nearly a hundred other black males.

Chief Wray says the book was used to investigate a sexual assault allegation against an officer.
But Interim Chief Tim Bellamy says detectives haven't found any documentation of the incident.
"We checked that system and no where can we find a report that fits the nature of what we've been investigating involving a police officer committing a sexual offense against a suspect," Bellamy said."

What about the News and Record's reporting? There were several reports from the News and Record about the evil black book. Check them out here.

Now, the black book is not as it was once reported to be. Since last month, the black book is simply described as a proper investigative tool used by police in an appropriate manner.

That is quite a change. However, the sudden reversal has not been reported by anyone news outlet that previously reported the black book as an inappropriate racial profiling tool.

Roch Smith Jr., a local blogger, left a comment at the N&R Editor's blog regarding Mitch's reversal.

Roch101 said:

Speaking of reporting, are you going to let your readers know that City Manager Mitch Johnson now swears that the "black book" was legitimate and that there is no evidence of improper use?

Posted on October 25, 2008 8:45 AM
John Robinson said:

My memory -- and a quick check of our reporting -- is that we never quoted Mitchell Johnson as saying the black book was illegitimate. Others raised questions about it, but not Mitch. And we quoted the chief as saying it was used correctly as an investigative tool.
The real issue, according to our stories, was that Johnson said that the chief lied to him about the existence of the book.
I'll look closer at our past reporting on Monday, though.
Posted on October 25, 2008 9:30 AM

JR's second comment to Roch's question:

I'm about halfway through what we have written, reading chronologically. Will try to finish tomorrow.
Roch, the city's web site has all the media reports about the police case. Well, I don't know if they have them all, but they have a lot. http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/departments/PublicAffairs/mediacenter/policenotebook.htmPosted on October 27, 2008 6:22 PM

Three days later, John still did not have any answers for Roch or anyone else.

John Robinson said:

Thanks, Concerned and Off Topic for staying on topic.
For everyone else, we'll look into the affadavit,(sic) but it'll be after the election.
Posted on October 30, 2008 12:11 PM

Why does it have to wait until after the election? Is the N&R only writing election stories? Let's review some of the Greensboro stories that were published by the N&R since Roch's October 25 question.

Technology reshaping campaigns
Too-young teens register others to vote
Student group brings Africa home to UNCG
Sprinklers might become mandatory on new homes
Bakery opens four holiday locations
Teaching merits new car
Farmers join against warming
PTI preparing new entries, exit
Early voters tops 100,000 in county
Giving voice to the animals
County, city could merge some services
Lorillard profit down slightly in quarter
Home sales continue to slide
Shelter officials predict bed shortage this winter
Fisher Park home restored to former beauty
Move over Superman: Make room for McCain and Obama

Seems to me that a story about Mitch's affidavit is more news worthy than the list of stories provided above. Let's examine 3 of the stories published by the N&R that report what Mitch previously claimed about the Black Book.

1. Ex-chief defends existence of book wray denies profiling through 'black book'
==================================================
Greensboro News & Record (NC)-January 12, 2006
Author: LORRAINE AHEARN and ERIC J.S. TOWNSEND; Staff Writer Eric Collins
contributed to this article

The photos appear to be unrelated to the Hinson investigation. Both Johnson and Wray said separately that the lieutenant's photo was not in the lineup. Wray said in his statement the book was kept because the sexual assault case was unresolved.

Yet Johnson suggested the former chief knew the book was improper.

What did Johnson suggest to the N&R that made them think Wray knew the book was improper? By reporting this, the N&R has admitted that Mitch thought the book was improper. That is a given. The statement also shows that Mitch suggested Wray knew the book was improper. Keep in mind, now Mitch is reporting the book was proper.

2. Undercover: A unit full of secrets
==================================================
Greensboro News & Record (NC)-January 15, 2006
Author: LORRAINE AHEARN
Why the black book?

A photo lineup book of 114 black men, including at least 19 city
officers, became the latest smoking gun in the story when city officials
confirmed last week that it not only existed, but had been hidden in former
Deputy Chief Randall Brady's car trunk, allegedly on Wray's orders.

Wray countered in a written statement that the black three-ring binder
had only been compiled and used to identify a suspect in a single case: A
prostitute's complaint that a police officer groped and sexually assaulted her
during a strip search last January.

But City Manager Mitchell Johnson said investigators concluded otherwise
- that there were numerous instances of the book being shown to criminal
defendants in an attempt to target black officers among the 19 pictured in the
book. Defendants were told, in Johnson's words, "If you ID an officer, we might
help you out."

Two days after reporting that Mitch suggested Wray knew the book was improper, the N&R had another story about the black book. This time it was RMA and Mitch that concluded that there were numerous instances of the black book being shown to criminal defendants in an attempt to target black officers. The N&R quotes Johnson saying that defendants were told by Wray's staff that if they ID an officer in the black book it could help them out. Keep in mind, now Mitch claims there is no evidence to prove the book was used as RMA reported.

Months after the N&R published the two black book articles posted above; they published an article written by the City Manager Mitch Johnson. In the report Johnson tells how Wray mislead him an ultimately lied to him about the black book's uses.

3.City manager, in his own words, on Wray affair
Greensboro News & Record (NC)-November 2, 2006
Author: MITCHELL JOHNSON

I also believed at that time that there was no accuracy to the concern being voiced that there was a photo lineup book of officers that was used on multiple occasions in an attempt to get informants to identify officers as involved in wrongdoing (which has been commonly described as a black book).

Johnson's report is clearly stating that Wray lied to him and led him to believe that there was no accuracy to rumors about a photo line up book being used on multiple occasions in an attempt to get informants to identify officers involved in wrong doing. This book was commonly described as the black book, according to Johnson.

Now, Johnson is saying that there is no evidence of racial profiling with the black book. Now Johnson says there is no evidence of it being used on multiple occasions. Unless you have a brain like Ed Cone, you will be able to see how crazy that sounds. JR is showing how full of shit he is by side stepping this issue. How silly for a grown man to say they never quoted Mitch saying the black book was used inappropriately.

Let's fact check JR briefly. Did the N&R quote Johnson saying the black book was used inappropriately? I would have to say with the evidence presented above the N&R quoted Johnson more than once saying the black book was used inappropriately.

Speaking of fact checking, let's review an older post from JR's blog.

JR wrote on June 1, 2008 at 8:15 AM:

Samuel, you write as if you know anything about what and how we fact-checked either story. You shouldn't do that.
We fact-checked them all well. No substantive fact we've reported has been proved wrong, despite what you might want to believe.

Can JR still say that? It was the N&R that reported the black book was a racial profiling tool that was used inappropriately. Who fact checked them? Has any substantive fact the N&R reported been proved wrong?

It is sad to watch a daily paper step and fetch for the leader of local government. It is also sad to see an editor micromanage the stories that contradict the Mitch's previous statements? Why hasn't a reporter for the N&R seen the contradiction and gone with a story? Could it be because the editor must carefully review all of the previous black book stories before anything can be printed? Is it like that for every story? I doubt it. The timing of this whole thing makes it most interesting.

At the last city council meeting, the council went into a closed session and voted to go back to the table with the $750,000 offer for the 41 officers in the EEOC complaint. (Side note: Fulmore was added to the EEOC complaint after his lawsuit against the city was tossed out) The vote passed 5-4. Voting yes were Barber, Perkins, Yvonne, Sandra and Lil Zachy. The no votes were from Wells, Bellamy-Small, Wade and Rakestraw. Wells and Bellamy-Small voted no because $750,00 is too low. They want to give them more than that. Wade and Rakestraw were the only council to vote in favor of not giving the EEOC complainants anything.

Mike Barber had just finished voting last week when he was asked at the Old Guilford County Court House by a citizen about the $750,000 payment to the black officers. Barber revealed to the citizen that the he believed the city manager's quotes in the paper about the black book were all that was needed for the officers to get at least $750,000 in a court of law.

The council and the EEOC clients are back to the table talking big money. $750,000 or more is on the line. The reason? The black book. But, the black book was a legit investigative tool. Why offer anything? According to Barber, the city will have to pay because of Mitch's statements to the media. Wanna review?

The police question:Greensboro News & Record (NC)-August 14, 2007

"In the latest development, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
ruled recently that the department discriminated against some of its black
officers during Wray's tenure. The EEOC specifically suggested that an infamous "black book" photo lineup containing pictures of 19 police officers and 95 other black men was "used to obtain incriminating evidence against black police officers." The officers' attorney, Ken Free, described those findings as "a huge victory" for his clients."

The EEOC is specifically wrong. Why pay them anything? Why hasn't the N&R reported any of this? $750,000 is on the line and Mitch's recent affidavit counters the EEOC's specific original findings. How did the EEOC specifically suggest that the black book was a racial profiling tool? Did they get that from the N&R article where Mitch suggested Wray knew the book was improper?

There is a story here. There is a relevant and news worthy story here. When the council went into closed session at their last meeting to discuss paying $750,000 because of the black book, did Mitch inform them he had signed an affidavit stating the black book was a proper tool and there was no evidence claiming otherwise? No, he did not.

The N&R should have a big story about all of this because it is all connected. The previous black book reporting, RMA, the affidavit and the EEOC are all connected and they are all important. However, not one word out of the N&R except from the editor. JR was quick to defend Mitch and play stupid when Roch made his comment. JR doesn't remember Mitch saying anything about the black being used inappropriately? I do and you should too.

The N&R reported Mitch suggested that Wray knew the book was inappropriate. The N&R published a letter written by Mitch stating that the Chief lied about having no knowledge of the black book being shown on multiple occasions in an attempt to get information about black officers doing wrong. Let’s review again. Mitch said last month there was no evidence of the black book being used improperly. Mitch swore it was a legitimate investigative tool. So, Mitch was wrong back then and Wray was right if you read Mitch’s affidavit.

The N&R’s lack of coverage along with the weird controlling factor presented by JR needs to be examined. JR’s family stands to make a bundle if the city buys their Canada Dry property. You connect the dots.