March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Healthy debate | Main | Rich and Robinson »

Jun 11, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chewie

It's a good and welcome thing to see Allen's editorial team take a stand, and a leadership one at that. Their call to the Council and the volume of the paper's news coverage on these issues will prove helpful to the community, I think.

I have one correction and one issue with the N&R piece:

N&R: "It criticizes the police's failure to muster any semblance of a presence in Morningside Homes despite its clear knowledge of the volatile relationship between the Klan and the communists -- and despite the presence of an FBI informant in the Klan caravan."

Eddie Dawson was a Greensboro Police Department informant at the time, not FBI (which he had been previously). It's important when talking about the advance knowledge of the Greensboro Police Department to note that their own informant led the Klan caravan to Morningside Homes, and that they had been in touch with him via phone calls that morning.


N&R: "Finally, in one of the main report's more notable lapses, it concedes that the commission found no evidence of a conspiracy between law enforcement and the Klan. But it says, in almost the same breath, that some commissioners see the lack of police protection on that day as intentional. Such speculation hurts the credibility of a document that, as an overall body of work, is well-researched and documented."

Conspiracy is not the same thing as intentionality. You don't have to conspire with someone in the legal definition of the word in order to take actions that make something happen.

The report states that evidence, not speculation, compelled these opinions about police intentionality, because "the totality of evidence reasonably suggests to the layperson that mere negligence alone is not an adequate explanation."

It's not speculation when someone(s) arrives at their views by examining reams of evidence. I appreciate the Commission's analysis. We won't see all the evidence they did, so I especially appreciate their conservatism in separating opinion from fact.

If someone wishes to make a compelling argument against the existence of police intentionality based on reams of evidence, I'll read that one too.

ben holder

I examined page 382. I will continue to look into the surveillance and go to council the next meeting to help them see what page 382 is about. Everyone will be mad. Truth does that.

The comments to this entry are closed.