April 2022

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

« True | Main | Council reaction »

Oct 16, 2006

Comments

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

sean coon

well, jordan beat me to the punch.

i wanted to present my opinion about the apparent mess in the management of the department first and *then* address the heart of the wray-lying-to-johnson-about-hinson matter.

the finding jordan refers to is absolutely the core purpose of the rma report, as it clearly states in the beginning of the document the rma mission provided by the city:

Did the police chief provide accurate and truthful information to the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, City Attorney, City Council members and/or the public at large regarding the suspension of Lieutenant Hinson, the discovery of the tracking devise and other related matters?

according to the evidence provide in the rma report, in my mind, the answer is a profound no to the first part and a slightly less absolute no to the remainder (more than anything else because i can't remember those details of the entire document offhand).

David Hoggard

As usual, Jordan took a wide range and narrowed it into an excellent piece of understandable journalism.

An aside observation: Green quoted directly from the RMA report including names. A first in local print as far as I know.

Bubba

"If true, this alleged behavior alone would seem reasonable cause for Wray's bosses to lose faith in him."

"Faith" between an employer ("Wray's bosses") and a high level employee (Wray) is a two way street. If it's not there at the start, from the top, it's a little naive to expect it to be forthcoming from the employee back up the chain of command.

David Hoggard

It WAS there from the start. For all practical purposes, Johnson hired David Wray.

Johnson's "faith" in Wray eroded over time. (And, apparently, vice-versa).

Bubba

"It WAS there from the start."

Bledsoe suggests that may not be true, and provides reasons for that conclusion.

Oh wait.....that's just another of Bledsoe's "innuendos", right?

The CA

I have a hard time swallowing theswallowing the "Wray lied" aspect.

The CA

Sorry about the typo.

Jordan Green

I would like to regretfully inform your readers that my story contains an error. Although I think the general thrust of the story is clear, I'm afraid the unintentional omission of a single word ("no") may have created a false impression. Hopefully, I can set the record straight. The following correction will appear in the Oct. 25 issue of YES! Weekly:

Due to clerical error, an article published in the Oct. 18 issue of YES! Weekly, “RMA report: Wray ‘crippled’ GSO Police Department,” misquotes the RMA report. Following a list of connections between Lt. James Hinson and drug dealer Elton Turnbull, the correct sentence reads: “There was no evidence that Hinson knew or should have known about Turnbull’s illegal activity uncovered by this investigation.” This is consistent with another section of the report quoted in the story, which reads: “The fact is that Lieutenant Hinson was never under investigation by the US Attorney’s Office or the target of an [organized crime drug enforcement task force] investigation.”

Secondly, a clarification: The article may have inadvertently created the impression that Assistant US Attorney Cliff Barrett was present for the entire time Nicole Pettiford was interrogated by Greensboro Police Department special intelligence investigator Scott Sanders. In fact, Barrett was only there for about 10 minutes.

The comments to this entry are closed.