N&R: "Investigators are examining unique photocopy patterns to ferret out who leaked a controversial report on former police Chief David Wray to reporters and bloggers. Hired by the city of Greensboro, these 'forensic document analysts' are comparing a copy scanned and posted on a Web site to versions once held by City Council members and city employees.

"Find the copy with the same distinct marks as the one posted on www.greensboro101.com, and you may find the leaker, City Manager Mitchell Johnson said."

Talk about unintended consequences...

Comments

[meblogin]

....talk about an effort to move from a primary subject to one unrelated...

I continue to wonder why our leadership appears to have no or little respect for our police department. Why did Johnson choose to use RMA again rather than our internal resources? I don't know about you but I would have rather these dollars go to charity than this cause any day of the week. It would be great to hear from our city manager as to why he did not use the GPD for this investigation.

Even if the source of the leak is identified that it was "insert name"'s copy. It has already been made public that protection of the documents were not secure. I think it is safe to say that the original copy owner will say that someone made copies without their knowledge. It would be really interesting if the original belonged to Johnson or Miles. Will the person have broken the law? Will they subject themselves to lie detector tests? Were they already tested or just most of the city council? If they weren't...why?

thanks

[beth]

Why the investigation? We all know who released it, even if that person doesn't admit it.

[David Hoggard]

No, Beth... you only think you know who released it. Big difference.

[Sandy Carmany]

meblogin,

The answer to "why use an outside firm for this latest investigation" is a no-brainer for me. Think about the potential for conflict of interest-- some police officials appropriately had copies of those RMA reports so their copies will be "under the microscope" along with all the others. And, what a political nightmare for city staff if that the leaked copy does happen to belong to a councilmember! Better to use an independent, unbiased outside firm that can sidestep either of those volatile possibilites.

(Besides, IF you want to accept the reasoning of some of our fellow bloggers and commenter, any personnel investigation conducted internally right now by GPD would be (fill in the blank): "bumbled," "biased," racially motivated," or "politically manipulated." Sorry, just could not resist that sarcastic observation!)

Re your other questions:
The city's 24-hour survelliance cameras show that no unauthorized person accessed the reports while they were in City Hall.

You are correct that anyone can always deny that they made or authorized the copying of the report. It was made clear to us councilmembers when we authorized this investigation that only the ORIGNINAL COPY OF THE REPORT could potentially be identified, not the person who actually allowed it to be copied.

You would have to consult a legal expert for an accurate response to the "breaking the law" question, but in my informed layman's opinion, I would say "yes."

At this point, eight city council members have voluntarily undergone lie detector tests on this issue; we cannot/could not force everyone to do so. Any and all city staff that had any access at all to the report underwent intensive interviews conducted by independent professionals who concluded everyone was truthful in saying they had not leaked it. Mitchell Johnson is quoted in the N&R today as saying any city staff person implicated in this leak investigation would be facing the lie detector test.

[Ed Cone]

Does the GPD even have forensic document specialists on staff?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

It is actually refreshing to see a city council member anywhere own up to the potential for "conflict of interest". Most "leaders" in other places have to be hit upside the head with a lawyer's two-by-four before they get it.

Sandy, your observation about those questioning whatthehellisgoingon does not sound so much "sarcastic" as truthful. And it indicates to me that the city has a "trust" problem. After all, the GSO city council is being forced to hire outside investigators to get a handle on a leak . . . a crime if I understand the law correctly . . . that never should have happened.

A lie detector test is inadmissable in a courtroom, yes? I'm not sure I understand the point of that.

[Roch101]

Unintended consequences? That presumes one knows the intentions of the person who posted it online. While providing a document for forensic analysis may not have been the original motive (or it might have), I don't know that doing so is now somehow regrettable because the document's public availability is serving additional purposes.

But about those purposes: I think Meblogin is quite likely correct. I'm no document forensics expert, but I think that the most compelling information is not going to be available to investigators. Toner spectrometry is not possible on a digital document. I doubt if fingerprints and embedded printer codes are going to be retrievable either.

What's left are the mechanical imperfections that can be unique to a given machine. These imperfections can be obscured or distorted by multiple copying. What we'll have then is an investigation concluding with a "maybe," if that.

And if investigators reach that point, then Meblogin's observations take over. If the "maybe" points to a single copy, there is no telling who among the people in possession of that copy may have "leaked" it.

As a time when we, as voters, are being asked to approve bonds so that the city can borrow money to do the things that cities are supposed to do, it's discouraging that public funds are being spent on something that, if one thinks it through, will not be conclusive and, at best, will not resolve anything but will only add to the climate of speculation.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Sounds like somebody's done their research . . . after the fact . . . and trying to throw some cold water on a legitimate set of questions (and an investigation to answer them).

What is really discouraging is that (if their cause was so "noble") the original and subsequent leakers/publishers do not have the backbone to say, "It was me. I did it. And this is why."

Somebody representing the city (or in city employ or under city contract) did not do what they were supposed to do. That's the easiest answer to MeB's questions. No one in the house can be trusted.

[meblogin]

Sandy and others,

Thanks for your help and input with understanding this confusing mess. I hope that our local leaders are found innocent of any wrongdoing.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

MeB, another point to consider. If the city is somehow "at fault" for these leaks (and it's hard to argue that they aren't), then it is in the city's best interest (and the taxpayers') to be able to demonstrate that they did everything they could to get to the truth.

A successful civil suit could drain substantial "public funds".

[tito rodriguez (owner monks cheesesteaks)]

im sorry to say that we had to close our summit ave store today
we just couldnt get a solid clientel to support us at this high end lease
for all our loyal customers thanks for coming and dont worry we are looking at a space on battleground ave and the new strip center near cone blvd wal-mart

for next year 2007..we were at summit for about 8 months and we will be back for another round of monks cheesesteaks& cheeseburgers