Spoke by phone with Ron Coleman, general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association. He obviously cannot and does not offer specific legal advice on the publication of the RMA report, but after our conversation it seems to me that a successful lawsuit for libel or defamation against a website publishing the report is unlikely.

Comments

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Re: "specific legal advice". He certainly sounds like a representative of the American Medical Association or North Carolina Medical Society:)

[The CA]

I agree with that sentiment, despite the efforts by some at the N&R to defend their paper by implying that there was only one correct answer to this question- that is that it was a clear cut case for libel. These things all turn on the specific facts, and I didn't see any in the report that made the issue cut and dry. It has been an interesting discussion that if followed, goes even deeper than the issues that have been discussed. That's why there is no "right" answer that would apply to the generalized discussion that has been debated.

I could write a brief that supports either side, but in the end, I think the one concluding that there is no libel would prevail. The N&R risk management folks may have seen it differently. It appears that the Rhino's attorney's see it differently, or at the very least, the N&R wasn't willing to take the risk that the Rhino did. Although they involve different issues (the RMA report vs. Bledsoe's investigation), the operative facts are similar enough that I think the outcome would be the same if either were sued. That applies to the web as well because the law does not distinguish between the nature of "publication" of the written word.

[Ed Cone]

The N&R says it made a deal not to publish the report, independent of legal concerns.

And there may be constraints on other publishers, too, that are unrelated to legal risk. For example, I take Sandy Carmany quite seriously, and her arguments against publishing the report carried weight with me.

[The CA]

I understand the N&R deal, and I think it was a very bad decision on their part because it now prevents them from investigating the leak, which is probably a criminal act by someone at city hall.

However, a lot of discussion has involved legalities, and I'm not sure I buy that as a defense, even though I may understand it.

I also think these same restraints support Wray's decision to make sure he did not hamper the Federal investigation even though Hinson was not a target of that investigation. All of his concerns about compromising that federal investigation seem to be playing out as he feared.

[Ed Cone]

What federal investigation?

The report says, "At no time did the US Attorney's Office for the Middle District of North Carolina nor did an OCDETF (organized crime drug enforcement task force) investigation ever prevent or impede the Greensboro Police Department in its efforts to investigate Lieutenant Hinson for any criminal or administrative malfeasance."

[The CA]

The federal investigation into others where Hinson's name had emerged. As has become apparent, the investigation into Hinson's activities by the GPD and as reported by Bledsoe and detailed in the RMA have in fact led to disclosures that affect the federal investigation into other people.

It does not matter that Hinson was not a target of a federal investigation- an investigation of him led to connections to people who were. Those connections have been widely reported and that has had a negative effect on the federal investigation into those people. Anna Mills Wagoner has said as much. There does not seem to be any disagreement on that.

Wray never claimed he was prevented or impeded by the US Attorney in his efforts to investigate Hinson. Rather, it appears that he was careful to use caution so that he did not compromise their investigation. The statement you refer to does not say that the US Attorney would approve of Wray disclosing the findings of his investigation- it only says they never tried to stop him from the investigation itself.

Again, Wagoner has said that she has "grave concerns" about her investigation now that matters have been made public as a result of the Hinson investigation by the GPD and the Rhino story. I certainly don't think she would agree that her office's statement that you mentioned was a greenlight for the revelations gleaned from the Wray investigation into Hinson, and subsequent investigation of Wray to be made public because that did affect her investigation.

I believe that statement in the RMA report is misleading in the context presented in the RMA report.

[Ed Cone]

The report makes a flat statement that no investigation of the sort mentioned by Wray "ever prevent[ed] or impede[d] the Greensboro Police Department in its efforts to investigate Lieutenant Hinson for any criminal or administrative malfeasance."

That's no investigation, ever. Not no investigation into Hinson.

[The CA]

Ed, I never said there was and neither did Wray, but you do realize that an investigation into Mick Jagger's escapades will likely lead to acts done by Keith Richards even if Keith isn't the target. That was the point- it doesn't matter whether Hinson was the target- an investigation of him at any level was going to lead to matters that were being investigated at the federal level. Even if there was no federal investigation of Hinson, surely Wagoner did not intend her offices statement to greenlight publication of matters touching on her investigation that were uncovered or involved in Wray's investigation. I think she would have issued an entirely different statement if Wray said "I'm going to make this public". Likely she would say "don't do it because it could compromise my investigation". Certainly it is plausible that Wray's June statement was made with this in mind- he wanted to make sure that he didn't step on her feet.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, you keep saying that there might have been some other investigation, beyond Hinson, that impeded Wray.

But the report says there was NO investigation that impeded the GPD's case.

Also, you speak as if you have definitive knowledge of what Wray ever said on the subject. Unless you have access to all of his statements to his bosses, you are working from incomplete information.

[The CA]

Ed, I don't know how else to explain it except to read my post "What Did Wray Really Say" on my blog. Sam Hieb over at Piedmont Publius picked up on it and seems to agree with the analysis.

[Fec Stench]

Wow.

[Ed Cone]

I read it.

You say "There were multi-agency investigations underway involving persons linked to Hinson, and it is certainly believable that Wray wanted more assurance that his efforts would not compromise those investigations."

The report says NO multi-agency investigations impeded the GPD.

You say, "I don’t recall Wray ever saying that he needed a greenlight from the US Attorney’s office before investigating Hinson."

Your recollection is not a standard of proof, and as mentioned above you may not have access to all of Wray's statements in any case.

As I said in another thread: The considered opinions of Tom Phillips and Sandy Carmany mean a lot to me on this matter. So does the investigative report.

And so does Bledsoe's reporting. So far, though, it shows a messed up police dept., and possible context for some of Wray's alleged mistakes, but I have not seen anything (yet) that argues against the RMA report and the judgment of tough, generally conservative Councilmembers.

I came into this story without a dog in the fight, but it looks to me that one dog is getting bit up pretty good.

[The CA]

"The report says NO multi-agency investigations impeded the GPD"

That isn't the same as saying Wray did not want to impede the multi-jurisdictional investigation. Wray had a duty to conduct his own investigation and could easily have decided to proceed with caution. He did not say he was prevented from investigating by the DOJ. He said he didn't act sooner because of the investigation- that was a professional decision in his role as chief. He may also have been waiting to see where the DOJ investigation was going- thus his statement that he did not act because of the other investigation. Go read his actual statement on June 17th and not just the paraphrasing in the RMA. He said he did not address it sooner (suspend Hinson) because of an ongoing drug investigation, "wide-ranging in scope" with "far-reaching geographic and subject matter implications.” He never said the investigation was of Hinson, but Hinson's name certainly came up several times on several matters in the investigation. It looks like he was doing a "wait and see" not only for his own investigation but also to ensure his investigation did not adversely affect their investigation. That sounds more like caution and competence than lying.

Relax, Ed. I'm not attacking you.

[Ed Cone]

You have constructed a conjectural exculpatory framework that is built on the most generous theoretical explanation of certain events and statements.

People including Carmany and Phillips, who have specific information you may lack, and who do not seem prone to attack a police chief without reason, see no reason to stretch for such answers, but accept the simpler interpretation of events offered by the report.

[The CA]

"People including Carmany and Phillips, who have specific information you may lack, and who do not seem prone to attack a police chief without reason, see no reason to stretch for such answers, but accept the simpler interpretation of events offered by the report."

Sometimes that is the most convenient thing to do.

[Ed Cone]

Again, a conjectural argument with no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence (i.e., long track records in public service) to undermine it.

This is not a conversation about what mighta coulda maybe happened, but about what really did happen.

[meblogin]

Ed,

You are not making any good sense sortakinamaybe.

Pleae elaborate on what really did happen.

[The CA]

"This is not a conversation about what mighta coulda maybe happened, but about what really did happen."

And I suppose you know what really happened.

[Ed Cone]

No, but rather than testing the limits of the imaginable, I'm trying to assemble the facts. Occam's Razor is in effect. The buy-in of generally conservative Councilmembers is a fact. The RMA report contains much data, which I'm attempting to understand and evaluate. Bledsoe is another source, with an obvious point of view but serious reportorial chops. Anyone who pretends this thing boils down to Hinson is Right v Wray is Right is kidding themselves, and that narrative seems to drive a lot of the commentary on the web.

[meblogin]

..well said...I guess it is equally correct that Hinson is right and Wray is wrong is kidding themselves... Darn...Hinson has a job!!! Why? Who hired him back?...duh.. IMAGINE and that really does test mey limits of the imaginable.
How about you?

[Joe Killian]

"Occam's Razor is in effect."

That's it - I'm building a sample around that.

[meblogin]

The RMA report is no more valid than Bledsoe's research and findings.

Show me evidence otherwise.

Who was under oath for either?

Neither should carry any greater weight. Explain it to me if you disagree.

[Ed Cone]

As has been pointed out previously, there is plenty of overlap between Bledsoe's report and the RMA report.

You are the one setting up the false either/or comparison between them.

Bledsoe has yet to address the specifics that the City and the RMA report say cost Wray his job.

Jerry has acknowledged a serious and troubling factual innacuracy in his work, but I am finding much of value in the series.

[The CA]

"No, but rather than testing the limits of the imaginable..." If that is the case, then there are a lot of delusional people out here besides myself. Publius, Guarino, Meblogin, etc, who don't find my analysis the stretch that you do. Further, if you spend enough time doing what I do, you will see that what often may seem unimaginable is frequently right on the money.

Three juries thought Darryl Hunt was guilty, too.

[The CA]

And at least Bledsoe corrects his errors and admits his mistakes.

[The CA]

Further, Occam's Razor is incompatible with the concept of the presumption of innocence and due process, although it can be an effective trial technique when confronted with a complexity of facts that you want a jury to ignore so they won't see the weakness in your case.

[Bubba]

"You are the one setting up the false either/or comparison between them."

No.

Meb's starement was correct in the context of the public will judge each work and compare them.

"Bledsoe has yet to address the specifics that the City and the RMA report say cost Wray his job."

I get the impression the Bledsoe is nowhere near done with his writing on this subject. Maybe you would like someone to leak a rough draft of his work regarding that particular subject?

"Jerry has acknowledged a serious and troubling factual innacuracy in his work......."

And Johnson has made a similar statement about the RMA report.

".....but I am finding much of value in the series."

I bet Johnson has also said that about the RMA report, albeit privately.

[meblogin]

For the moment this being the more popular thread...smile...---here are some more thoughts

By the way I posted more questions and my opinions at my blog if interested--

You appear to have faith in our city council and leadership. This of course is the same that put Hinson back to work. A similar council gave millions to prominent black leaders that can not account for anything. You are damn right. I challenge the current leadership of Greensboro to clean up what was once a fine police department. I believe Wray was part of the solution and not part of the problem based on all my reading. Prove this statement wrong when the same leadership that led to his resignation put Hinson back to work. ONLY an IDIOT would do this. A Greensboro policemen sleeps with a known prostitute and girl friend of a known drug kingpin while married....fire him...plain and simple.
Don't dance around...step up and either agree or disagree...can you do that? I don't think you can...based on the bulk of what I read for weeks about this and other topics. As fine of a person as I believe you to be....you have a tough time moderating your opinion. I don't know why.

Here is a quote from Johnson's bio---see if you think it fits with someone who directly is responsible for hiring HInson back..."City of Greensboro employees strive to live up to the four core values of honesty, integrity, respect, and stewardship everyday." Johnson should be replaced given this type of decision making. Do you disagree? I know...cold day in hell before you fundamentally answer anyone's questions...sigh... without rising above and know what "I or anyone else" is really saying or really means.

When the report reads like fiction and appears to have the customer coaching the author..yes..I have doubts. You apparently do not. I prefer to let a court decide. You seem comfortable with the current status. You think Wray's sterling history is irrelevant or not significant based upon this report...I think you are darn silly. You think he is guilty...fine....I think he should either be reinstated or arrested for a crime. You who profess to be reporters...does the report not read like a front page story?

Do you get that I have said several times...if Wray is guilty...send his guilty ass to jail. Has the city or the police charged him with a crime? No...do you think they ever will? I don't. Johnson and Miles already have their goal. If he is never charged with a crime....are you comfortable that he was not innocent and found guilty without ever going to court.

One of the very few sentences that I have read that is really serious and important comes from Ben that a federal informant was exposed. So far this is the ONLY reason that I can see to have not released this report...not that we saw the entire report..we did not. (or at least the 101 release)

Folks...no one was under oath for this "independant research"...hence the similarity to Bledsoe's research. Why does this not make good sense to others?

[Ed Cone]

Occam's Razor applies to a specific point. I'm suggesting that the simplest explanation for Carmany and Phillips to buy into the manager's case is that they actually find it compelling based on the information they have. To argue otherwise not only requires a more tortured explanation, it impugns the character of people who have shown me no reason to be doubted.

Noting that Bledsoe has not yet addressed the specifics of Wray's downfall is in no way a criticism of the series, it is merely a statement of fact.

It seems to me that people who decided before reading the RMA report that Wray must be defended and the City's version attacked are sticking to that position. It seems difficult for some people to imagine that not everyone comes into this with an agenda or strong preconceptions.

As someone who has been waiting all along for more information before trying to arrive at a conclusion, I've read Jerry's series with interest, and will continue to do so, and I read the RMA report with an open mind.

We know more now than we did a week ago. I'm sure we have much left to learn. The endless speculation based on limited knowledge is tiresome.

[meblogin]

How true...you need only go back a few days to read that you are quite comfortable with the status quo.

[Bubba]

Well put, meb.

We deserve better--all of us--- from our city manager, city attorney, mayor, city council, and our daily newspaper--regardless of how we feel about Wray.

[The CA]

Ed, I have clients that tell me one story all the time only for me to find out that they are completely lying after I read the discovery from the State or other side in a civil matter. If I ignore the strength of my opponents case as revealed in their disclosures, I do so at my clients peril. Rather, I must find identify the strengths and exploit the weaknesses. This requires objectivity to be effective.

I never approached the RMA report with a preconceived notion. If the case had been made, I would concede as such and work with what I had if I was arguing only for the sake of arguing. Maybe it is just me and a few others, but many of the claims in the report simply do not survive closer scrutiny and would be pretty easy to challenge upon cross examination.

Further, I never attacked Carmany or Phillips, but I also don't ascribe a higher than normal talent to them simply because they are elected officials. They have the ability to be wrong or persuaded by one point of view just like anyone else. Otherwise, we could do away with a jury system and simply allow Carmany and Phillips to decide innocence or guilt because they never reach the wrong conclusion. Even scientists of high caliber and intelligence can look at the same set of facts and reach a different conclusion.

And your last sentence about the "tiresome" nature of things would equally apply to your many rebuttals of nearly everything I have said. This isn't a competition and simply saying things are "tiresome" because you don't get the last word is not very persuasive.

[Bubba]

"It seems to me that people who decided before reading the RMA report that Wray must be defended and the City's version attacked are sticking to that position."

No, Ed.

We questioned the one-sidedness of the story, as reported by the N&R. We were skeptical.

We decided we wanted more of the facts known before coming to a conclusion. We abhorred the trial and conviction of Wray by newspaper, which was tantamount to a witch hunt.

Subsequent information has proven us correct in our original skepticism.

Wray may not be completely innocent of any wrong-doing, but the ongoing revelations don't show him to be the racist he was portrayed as being. Further, the magnitude of any Wray errors is far exceeded by reprehensible actions of those who wronged him unfairly.

Why are we not asking questions about those responsible for making the two leaks, and their agenda in doing so?

[PotatoStew]

meb,

You said: "I think he should either be reinstated or arrested for a crime."

Is committing a crime the only valid reason for dismissal? Or could there be behaviors that an employee could exhibit that would warrant dismissal while not rising to the level of a criminal act?

[meblogin]

I 100% agree that there are behaviors that an employee can exhibit that warrants dismissal while not rising to the level of a criminal act. You ask a great question.

Let me ask a few back---- Wray has a fantastic work record and general history and has never been accused of racism until now. Does this strike anyone as odd?
He is well decorated and respected by many in both black and white leadership.

Does anyone support Hinson being part of Greensboro's finest other than Johnson and Miles? Please..someone....please take up the cause to defend the reasoning.

Does anyone find it odd that both the RMA and Bledsoe indicate illegal activity on the part of Hinson with no arrest...no prosecution.......GEEZ...why don't we promote him again?? Now ask...given the past..do you think it can happen? I think it can with current leadership.

What did the RMA report cost? Why were those interviewed not under oath? A peron's career was trashed as a result.

Some of you know some the people first hand. I do not. I can easily be wrong and will do my best to learn from others and apologize as needed.

Back to my statement about being arrested for a crime... Did the RMA report serve the intended purpose for Johnson and Miles? Has anyone heard of any warrants for either Hinson or Wray?

[meblogin]

Could someone explain to me what Sanders did that merited him losing his job?

It appears that Johnson can do whatever.

[Ron Coleman]

Ed, I have clients that tell me one story all the time only for me to find out that they are completely lying after I read the discovery from the State or other side in a civil matter. If I ignore the strength of my opponents case as revealed in their disclosures, I do so at my clients peril.
Well put, The CA!

[Ed Cone]

There is a false choice being presented that says one has to join either the Hinson or Wray camp. Having never been in either one, I've been asking for more information for months. The info I've received so far, via Bledsoe and the City, does not seem to reflect well on either man.