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  

« Perkins online | Main | Murky waters »

Oct 03, 2007

Comments

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

Bubba

(yawn)

More pushback.

"Nothing new there: the City's case is that the Chief of Police misled his superiors about the multijurisdictional and internal investigations of James Hinson."

Where's the city's documentation?

When do we get the rest of the information the city has about tthe David Wray firing?

Perhaps we will just have to wait for Mitch and Linda's sworn testimony in a court of law, assuming their 5th amendment rights are not invoked.

Roch101

"Does Wray claim..."

Good, important questions, but we've had enough of claims and counter claims? It's time that all available documentation in the hands of the employees and representatives of the people of this city release it to the people of this city.

The CA

"Mitchell Johnson said he and former City Manager Ed Kitchen had received assurances from Wray that the focus on Hinson was the result of a highly sensitive, multijurisdictional criminal investigation that Wray dared not compromise."

The focus on Hinson was the RESULT of a multijurisdictional investigation in which Hinson's name had emerged, even though he was later deemed not significant in that investigation by the Feds. It was highly sensitive, and is probably still ongoing which is why Anna Mills Wagoner was upset over the Rhino stories and other information that has been made public.

This focus on semantics is really disturbing. Just because Hinson was not the target of the multijurisdictional investigation, does not mean he wasn't a part of it. He clearly was a part of it. Wray never claimed Hinson was the target, only that his investigation was the result of it. Hinson's name comes up of interest to the Feds, they don't pursue Hinson but Wray sees enough bad stuff of State and Local concern to investigate, but wants to do so without blowing the federal case. It's that simple. Mitch's game of splitting hairs over semantics is obvious and designed to for consumption by people incapable of independent thought and weak on comprehension.

Ed Cone

It would be helpful to know what Wray actually said to Johnson, and when, and how those statements jibe with the nature and timing of any relevant multijurisdictional investigations.

And it would be helpful to know what Wray actually said to Johnson, and when, about the internal investigations of Hinson, including the Thacker/Wyrick investigation.

The CA

I agree with that, Ed.

Bubba

"Mitch's game of splitting hairs over semantics is obvious and designed to for consumption by people incapable of independent thought and weak on comprehension."

That's all they've got to prop up a disintegrating meme.

The comments to this entry are closed.