Jordan Green of Yes! Weekly has read the RMA report, and he files this story on the mess at GPD.
The report seems to confirm the allegations of bad behavior on the part of Lt. Hinson detailed by Jerry Bledsoe in the Rhinoceros Times. Bledsoe's reporting limns the damage done to the GPD under former Chief White, and (along with the RMA report) paints a convincing picture of the department as a snakepit of political and racial factions.
But none of that would excuse the alleged misrepresentation by former Chief Wray of the Hinson investigation, which he reportedly linked to a multi-agency drug investigation that the RMA document claims did not exist. If true, this alleged behavior alone would seem reasonable cause for Wray's bosses to lose faith in him.
Green: "The report calls into question Wray's alleged description at a June 17, 2005 press conference of a wide-ranging investigation involving multiple agencies and the former chief's alleged statement that he had only recently been given approval to 'move on' information that had developed during an investigation of Greensboro police officers...'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 report concluded. 'Contrary to insinuations made by Chief Wray, the fact is that Lieutenant Hinson was never under investigation by the US Attorney's Office or the target of an OCDETF investigation.'"
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:
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).
Posted by: sean coon | Oct 17, 2006 at 03:33 AM
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.
Posted by: David Hoggard | Oct 17, 2006 at 09:16 AM
"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.
Posted by: Bubba | Oct 17, 2006 at 09:31 AM
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).
Posted by: David Hoggard | Oct 17, 2006 at 10:00 AM
"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?
Posted by: Bubba | Oct 17, 2006 at 10:56 AM
I have a hard time swallowing theswallowing the "Wray lied" aspect.
Posted by: The CA | Oct 17, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Sorry about the typo.
Posted by: The CA | Oct 17, 2006 at 11:17 AM
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.
Posted by: Jordan Green | Oct 19, 2006 at 10:07 PM