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  

« Danzarabian Nights | Main | Long Tail interview »

Nov 01, 2006

Comments

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

benholder

if Johnson's version is factual, then Wray needed to go.

If is a mighty big word in this case. If Bledsoe is correct then Johsnon and many others should have to go as well.

Ed Cone

Johnson's statements should be verifiable, and verification should be presented to the public.

This not the stuff of conjecture.

Either there was a multi-jurisdictional investigation, or there was not; either Wray told his bosses there was, or he didn't; etc.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Good God, Ed, you make it sound so simple when it is not. The problem is that sometimes there is NO WAY of know who is investigating what. If you'd ventured from the throne and read the post I put up this month about my own meeting with the IRS (concerning allegations I've made agains "non-profit" hosptial administrators in Asheboro), you might learn something about how the world really works.

Guarino had a very good post up on October 23 - about the casual/easy corruptibility of the District Attorney's office ("The Case Against Henderson For DA" . . . for some reason it won't link). Contrary to popular belief, DA's (like Nifong/Henderson/Yates) do NOT answer to the NC State Attorney General. State statute forbids it. No matter how smelly things are, the state cannot just dive in unless the DA/other local law enforcement asks.

The various local, state, and federal jurisdicitions in my case have NOT communicated with one another . . . indeed the law says that they cannot. Indeed, in Asheboro an independent investigation of a "non-profits" illegal tactics was shut down by one man . . . the Randolph County DA. The state has jurisdiction, so short of changing the law (or filing another lawsuit) I'm screwed. And if I rang up the IRS today and asked them today, "How's that federal investigation going?", by law they would not be able to tell me a thing.

The point is every jurisdiction in this GPD mess has their own little legal fiefdom. And oversight/good communication is a joke. It's entirely possible that Chief Wray did not have a good handle on who was investigating what/whom because no one was telling HIM anything (except that there might some nebulous investigation going on). On the flip side, he probably did not feel free to speak freely (even to his bosses) . . . for fear of jeopardizing or compromising somebody's investigation (including the one he was trying to conduct) . . . or getting sued. So he was stuck with walking a tightrope. Enter Mitch with a change of locks.

Now we've confidential documents leaking all over the place . . . to justify one set of actions or another. Never mind that some of this stuff was never supposed to see the light of day . . . and we're walking all over people's civil & privacy rights . . . and the leak is probably a crime. The public has that "right to know". Right now.

By all means follow the documents as they leak out. But black and white is not always so black and white. If if were, two hosptial administrators in Asheboro would be (1) out of a job or (2) in jail.

Ed Cone

Mary, I think you are incorrect about the impossibility of knowing what happened in this case.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Please don't put words in my mouth, Ed. I merely pointed out the possibility that this situation is NOT as simple as some would make it.

And in that muck is where the truth resides and good people get lost.

Ed Cone

You said, "sometimes there is NO WAY of know who is investigating what."

I do not think this is one of those times.

Jeffrey Sykes

Folks:

Wray is not the chief of police. He is not coming back. He resigned.

Greensboro now needs to address all that occurred before he resigned, all that he was tackling at the time he resigned, or else risk having it swept aside in another avalanche of use of the word "racism".

Wray is gone. Y'all need to move on to the cops and robbers that are left.

Fred Gregory

Is this it Mary ?

The Case Against Henderson

Dr. Mary Johnson

I know what I said Ed. There is a bit of a difference betweening knowing what Wray knew or did not know at the time . . . and knowing what was actually going on.

No argument, Jeffrey. None. But part of moving on to the cops and robbers that are left is figuring out what went wrong . . . and playing fair while you do it.

Yes Fred, thank you. I tried several times, it would not work for me.

Ed Cone

Johnson says Wray lied to him about a specific, alleged investigation.

It ought to be provable whether Wray said there was an investigation, and whether there was an investigation.

Not so difficult, really.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Forgive me, Ed, but "multi-jurisdictional" does NOT sound very "specific" or simple to me.

Bledsoe is still churning out his serial at the Rhino, I guess we'll know Wray's version of events soon enough.

Excuse me while I go watch a news flash. Eastern Guilford High School is apparently on fire.

Ed Cone

It has a specific meaning in this case, Mary, which is discussed in detail in the RMA report (complete with a diagram), and Wray is said to have been referring to a particular investigation.

Bubba


"Mary, I think you are incorrect about the impossibility of knowing what happened in this case."


"You said, 'sometimes there is NO WAY of know who is investigating what.'

I do not think this is one of those times."

Based on what?

Certainly not the information you've presented about the situation in this thread.

You are doing the same thing you accuse others of doing: Coming into a discussion with your mind made up.

That's fine with me, but Johnson's version of the story in no way provides any evidence that supports the conclusions you've made above.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Hi Bubba.

On principle (having been screwed over by the same kind of shenanigans) I haven't read the RMA report, Ed. It was not intended for my eyes. Yours either. The law is fairly clear that it never should have been leaked or published.

I'd draw you a diagram, but I don't think it would help.

And again, even if Wray were referring to a specific investigation, you seem to be missing the point that he may not have been kept up to speed on the progress of any investigation - especially on the Federal level (even if he initiated it) . . . and may not have known for sure if it were on-going or over.

Apparently the chemistry lab blew up. No one hurt. A long time ago, I once almost did that at UNC-G:)

Ed Cone

Mary: Gotcha. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to this kind of investigation, you refuse to read the document that explains it, but that won't keep you from making incorrect statements about it.

Bubba, no conclusion reached, just a supposition that there should documentary evidence and sworn testimony to prove or disprove that Wray told Johnnson what Johnson says he did, and that the alleged investigation did or did not exist.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Ed, I'm not doing the peeing contest thing with you. There's no "gotcha" here. The point you do not want to concede is that, by virtue of my own experience in somewhat similar "jurisdictional" circumstances, I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. As for not reading the report, I simply choose to live within the confines of the law (something that so far has not served me well . . . a sad comment on our society). I cannot demand that Asheboro hospital officials be punished as criminals for plundering confidential peer review & medical board documents . . . and then turn around and read the RMA report.

However, from what I understand (based on the statements of others who have read the statement - and are following the Bledsoe series), there seems to be multiple viewpoints . . . and a lot of room for interpretation of events . . . especially with regards to the interactions between Johnson and Wray.

My mind is open to those possibilities. Yours seems to be closed. It seems to me that, since the publication of the report, many of the bigger players in the GSO blogosphere would like to see this whole mess just go away (the easiest way to do that is write off Wray as a liar - if not a racist) . . . perhaps because the blogger who put the report online could get caught in the crossfire of civil and/or criminal retribution.

As you say, unintended consequences.

Ed Cone

Gotcha, meaning, I get you, I understand what you are saying.

And what you are saying is that you refuse to read the explanation of the type of investigation under discussion.

Your personal experience in contesting a lawsuit settlement does not seem terribly relevent to understanding this situation.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Ed, none of us are stupid. Gotcha means gotcha. Based on your extended explanation, you "get" nothing . . . and you understand very little . . . especially not me. Once again, you are putting words in my mouth . . . spinning your viewpoint . . . and slamming me/belittling my dance of jurisdiction . . . in the process. And you're getting it wrong.

I refuse to read a document that was never meant for my eyes. I've explained my reasons why. Other GSO bloggers you respect have made the same decision. I suppose your position is that they don't have any right to have an opinion or comment either?

On the other hand, I do listen to others (I trust) who have read the RMA report. Amazingly, they don't all agree with your interpretation of its black and white simplicity.

Ed Cone

Ah, now you're a mind-reader too.

Just not much of plain-old-reading reader.

I wrote that the RMA report explains the kind of investigation we're talking about, not that it's the last word on this whole case.

You haven't read the report. I don't care if you read it or not, but it does define the type of investigation under discussion.

You may have profound reasons for maintaining your ignorance on the subject, but that doesn't make your ill-informed comments on it somehow relevant.

Your personal experience is not analogous to the investigation of a police chief, or for every bad thing in the world.

Please don't launch another Marython. This is not about you.

Dr. Mary Johnson

Ed, now you're just getting nasty. You wouldn't be trying to provoke a "Marython" would you? No that couldn't be it.

That would be easier than addressing some of the legitimate (and uncomfortable) points I've raised in this thread (about the jurisdictional issues that make investigations in the real world problematic . . . about small things like legalities and ethics and the responsibility of bloggers . . . as well as the "unintended consequences" of their actions).

Before you call me "batshit crazy", I'll make my exit.

David Hoggard

Thank God.

Bubba

It's just Ed being Ed, Dr. J.

Not the first time it's happened, won't be the last time either.

Bubba

And Hoggard being.....well, we're not quite sure about him yet, are we?

The CA

"It has a specific meaning in this case, Mary, which is discussed in detail in the RMA report (complete with a diagram), and Wray is said to have been referring to a particular investigation."

I drove enough holes through this theory and the explanation for it two weeks ago here.

Now cue Ed claiming that my post did nothing of the sort and discounting the arguments I made with some smart remark rather than deal with the substance.

Unless Johnson has something new, his argument that he was lied to is rather thin. If this is the best excuse they have, we really need to question their real reason for forcing Wray out. This one is crap.

sean coon

do bubba, DMJ, Guarino, CA, et al. get together and watch soap operas all day to prepare for commenting/posting?

jeesh, folks. unless you have absolute proof -- unless any of us have absolute proof -- that contradicts the RMA report (which contained interviews that are much more legally binding and career disrupting than wray feeding bledsoe his next "masterpiece") and outlines -- specifically -- the nefarious reason for johnson to fire wray, this banter is tiresome.

oh, wait, bledsoe is still getting wray's side of the story... my bad. we're up to part 13 now. alert me when "another wray" is over and cartoons come on.

meblogin

The RMA report did not read like objective research to me...it was full of opinions and innuendos that read more like fiction. Anyone else agree or not?...

The CA

"do bubba, DMJ, Guarino, CA, et al. get together and watch soap operas all day to prepare for commenting/posting?"

No, that's what you LGBBC do.

"jeesh, folks. unless you have absolute proof -- unless any of us have absolute proof -- that contradicts the RMA report (which contained interviews that are much more legally binding and career disrupting than wray feeding bledsoe his next "masterpiece") and outlines -- specifically -- the nefarious reason for johnson to fire wray, this banter is tiresome."

Actually, it only requires the ability to analyze information and reason to find the flaws in the RMA and much of it's conclusions. I don't need someone else to tell me it is so before I reach my own conclusion.

...and your banter, which mirrors the REST of the LGBBC for the most part is what makes your accusation that Bubba, Guarino, myself, et al get together and decide what to say even more funny.

The CA

There was/is a multi-jurisdictional investigation going on. It was not an investigation. Never the less, there is a great deal of concern that the investigation has been compromised due to the allegations concerning Hinson which also involve people involved in the mult-jurisdictional investigation. Anna Mills Wagoner has expressed "grave" concerns about the investigation now that many of the details are public due to the stories about Hinson being made public. Therefore, Wray did not lie about his concern that the multi-jurisdictional investigation might be compromised if the details of his investigation of Hinson were made public.

It's that simple. It only takes a little thought and analysis and to use Wray's term, "connecting the dots". That is the evidence- it only requires you to think and reach your own conclusions. It doesn't require someone else to write a report about it that you can cite before establishing the evidence. Look at what people said and did and the impact of those decisions for yourself. That is all the evidence you need. Wray never said to my knowledge that Hinson WAS the target of the multi-jurisdictional investigation, he only hinted that there was overlap and connections, which there clearly were.

The CA

I meant to say "it was not an investigation of Hinson".

Ed Cone

But it's not as simple as saying "Aha, investigations did exist." We know certain investigations existed. The question is the relevance, and alleged claimed relevance, of any such investigations to Hinson.

The City says (along with other serious allegations against Wray) that in conversations with the manager and other officials Wray misled them about Hinson's relationship to the investigation, and that Wray failed to tell them that Hinson had been cleared in previous investigations into these relationships.

As noted above, there ought to be documentary evidence, or sworn testimony from multiple parties, to prove or disprove these charges against Wray.

Bubba

Isn't it amazing the pushback we're getting from those who are bound and determined to follow the preset conclusion that Wray is guilty of heinous crimes and misdemeanors, while totally ignoring the larger picture?

It's the politics of deflection at it's best, and at it's worst for our citizens.

Apparently, they would like us all to go away quietly so that we can return to the rotten state of business (and politics) as usual as quickly as possible.

Why are we not surprised?

Roch101

"do bubba, DMJ, Guarino, CA, et al. get together and watch soap operas all day to prepare for commenting/posting?" -- Coon

No, that's what you LGBBC do. -- Spags

You both are childish when you try to manufacture these monolithic divisions.

Ed Cone

Bubba, who exactly is "bound and determined to follow the preset conclusion that Wray is guilty of heinous crimes and misdemeanors, while totally ignoring the larger picture?"

Bubba

"Bubba, who exactly is 'bound and determined to follow the preset conclusion that Wray is guilty of heinous crimes and misdemeanors, while totally ignoring the larger picture?'"

"Who, me?" said Ed.

Ed Cone

Bubba,

Why not quit the chickenshit games?

Answer a straight question with a straight answer for once.


The CA

"You both are childish when you try to manufacture these monolithic divisions."

I don't know, go look at Potato Stews' chart of ideology from March- the "groups" pretty much fall in line on the big issues. In any case, I have never met Bubba, Guarino, DMJ, Cone, Stew, Chewie, Cara Michelle, Stormy, Meblogin, Sean Coon, Joe Killian, Ben Holder, Hoggard, Roch or anyone else who regularly posts here except for John Burns, whom I went to high school with and have known for over 20 years. I've never had a phone conversation with anyone of these people.

So if there is collusion, I'm not involved.

Cara Michele

"I have never met..."

We can fix that! ;) Go here.

Seriously, one of the best parts of our online community is our offline community.

meblogin

one of the funniest comments I have ever read---

A quote from the straight answer guy himself (not) ----Ed Cone
"Answer a straight question with a straight answer for once."

I have read hundreds of questions that have been asked of you that you chose to not answer. Sometimes you grab 4 or 5 words and tweak them to suit you...but rarely do you follow your above advice.

That was just down outright funny...thanks Ed. It almost deserves a post by itself...grin

Ed Cone

Feel free to frequent any of the 50 million other blogs out there, Meb.

meblogin

I frequent quite a few.

If you would like for me to move on and not frequent yours....just make it known.

me

Ed Cone

Meb, you have blundered into something that doesn't involve you.

Bubba comments without reading. He spams and trolls. And he lacks the courage to come out and say what he means, so he plays games. In this case, he's coyly insinuating that I hold the position that "Wray is guilty of heinous crimes and misdemeanors, while totally ignoring the larger picture."

Which is complete bullshit.

Maybe even Bubba realizes that he's saying it beneath a post that reads, "We've been told a lot in the last several months about alleged misdeeds by cops and the atmosphere of the GPD. Those things matter, greatly." And that lays out some evidentiary standards for proving OR DISPROVING the case against Wray.

I'm tired of it, and I'm telling him that. I've been allowing every needy soul and loudmouthed jerk as much room as they wanted on my blog. That may be coming to an end.

I don't have the time or inclination to answer every one of your meandering queries. Deal with it, or don't. This has nothing to do with you.

The CA

Hmmmm...

Bubba

Anything else, Ed?

No, I didn't think so.

From the very first time I posted on this blog, it was apparent that you really were not really interested in an open exchange of ideas here and the give and take of reasoned adult discourse. You put down people that you felt were beneath you, and you attempted to intimidate those you thought could be easily intimidated.

You can't stand anyone who challenges your undeserved arrogance. You can't stand the fact that there are any number of people who see through you on a regular basis these days, and hold you accountable. You can't stand that we will no longer allow you to pull your intimidation tactics on those with whom you disagree.

Save your pretentiousness for someone who is still fooled by your overblown persona, assuming there are some who have yet to figure it out.

Feel free to carry out your pompous threat, and send a message to everyone about how shallow and insecure a person you actually are.

Most of all, get over yourself.

Joe Killian

I don't wanna stick my head in the lion's mouth here...
but how overdeveloped a sense of self righteousness do you have to have to spend this much time and energy insulting someone over how and why they post what they post on their personal blog, calling them names and mocking them in ways that are completely unrelated to postings? Particularly when you have your own blog...

I'm not sure if screwing with people with whom you disagree politically or philosophically gives you the sort of rush most would equate with fighting muggers in back alleys and leaping from rooftops in a black cowl but casting yourself as the hero of your own little Internet melodramatic fight against people saying what they like on their own blogs if you don't like it or think it's philosophically consistent is a good way to firmly establish yourself as the worst kind of troll...and it's annoying to those who'd like to read, discuss and talk without the latest installment of an epic pissing match every four comments.

I've never been as fixated on anyone or anything - in my real life, off the net - as you seem to be on Ed and his blog. It's way, way out of proportion and the sort of thing that disturbs me about the blogosphere.

percywalker

Who is this "we" you are speaking for, Bubba?

Also, do you believe that Ed Cone is "bound and determined to follow the preset conclusion that Wray is guilty of heinous crimes and misdemeanors, while totally ignoring the larger picture"?

meblogin

Ed,

You just don't get it! I, perhaps along with some others, blog so that I can learn from others and the many hours of research they have invested. My sense is that you desire your blog readers to have spent hours reading and researching so that they can agree with your position. I have questions and don't have the hours in the day as some do.

Do you ever notice that a few days later that some of your posts seem to meander to the questions that I have asked? No...I guess not.

Joe,
You, me and the rest have every right to manage our blogs as we see fit. Ed dishes it as well as he gets...maybe a little better from time to time. I know he has insulted me a few times and for the most part I just let it pass or make a statement that he is rude. It is his blog and it sounds like he needs to make changes so that he enjoys it more. (...or maybe he really likes it...)

Ed,

It is you who wrote---"You may have profound reasons for maintaining your ignorance on the subject, but that doesn't make your ill-informed comments on it somehow relevant."

Do you not understand the depth of your insults? I think you do as I would have to assume you to be a complete ....sorry...waste of my time to continue...

I will slow down my visits to your blog and commenting.

meyer

Ed: I strongly encourage your moderation of trolls whose only purpose is to disrupt a respectful and honest conversation or debate. The ratio of fecal droppings to intellect here has gotten too high. I won't hold my nose much longer. Maybe Greensboro is not mature enough or disciplined enough for meaningful, constructive conversation. Or maybe the blog assassins will ultimately succeed in destroying the community.

I can only count a few of these habitual trolls here. Can't you be pro-active before they kill your audience? While I applaud your efforts to allow unbridled expression I think clearly the experiment has failed. You either want to wrestle with a few midgets or have an adult conversation with a broader audience.

The CA

Definition of troll: "Conservative who you disagree with"

meyer

Definition of troll: "Conservative who you disagree with"

No, "Complete Asshole"

David Hoggard

I think the thing that bothers me most about the depths to which the level of discourse has fallen here is the fact that civility has gone to hell in a hand basket.

No matter what Ed writes, there are a few here who have adopted the comments section of this blog as their personal soapbox. They are using it not for conversation but as a platform for shouting down others without listening.

Ed (me, too) is obviously fed up and it has nothing to do with someone being conservative or whatever. Before some commenters-turned-bloggers took over Ed's comments you could actually come here and talk intelligently and disagree amiciably, and at the end of the day everyone would go to the next thing and remain friends. The tone of the comments from some - (not the content or political leanings of the players, Sam) - has pretty much killed this place for me.

To Cara's point, we used to have some unspoken rules around here. Everyone used respect each other because many locals made the effort to KNOW each other offline - personally - through Meetups etc. But now it's some badge of honor for people not to have shaken hands with each other, and have no interest in doing so. (Ask Guarino, Sam Hieb, Fred Gregory, Doug Clark, David Wharton, Joel, Tom Phillips, Chip et al).

All of the folks continuously dominate the "conversation" here now have their own blogs (I wonder what/who infuenced that?). Go there and write something interesting and I'll come by and take a look... maybe. Or... stay here and tone it down a bit.

If you don't care what others think, fine, then stop telling me what you think. That's really the crux of it to me - I'll listen if you will but this screaming at each other has to stop.

The comments to this entry are closed.