N&R: [T]hree retired commanders who worked under Wray but were not involved in the scandal differed sharply with Wray's explanation of why he stepped down under pressure while Hinson was reinstated.

In a recent interview with the News & Record, former Deputy Chief Tony Scales, former Assistant Chief Bill Stafford and retired vice-narcotics Capt. Rick Ball said Wray's demise was self-inflicted.

The veteran commanders cited missteps they blamed on Wray's inexperience in basic police investigative work, unwillingness to listen to dissent and reluctance to discipline or fire a prominent black officer he believed to be unfit.

On the alleged multi-jurisdictional investigation: "We were specifically told that James Hinson was not a target," Ball recalled of the meeting with the U.S. attorney's staff, "and that what we would do administratively was a police department matter."

More: The commanders agree that the allegations against Hinson "absolutely" needed to be investigated — either to charge him or to clear him.

Where they think the Hinson case ran amok — and brought about the very backlash Wray sought to avoid from the local NAACP and some black clergy — was when the accusations weren't substantiated but the investigation kept going.

On the "black book": "Once (Wray) found that book, he had an opportunity to say, 'Look what I found,'" said Scales, who retired as deputy chief in 2004. "How do you not do that and still keep the trust of your supervisors?

Three former senior people, pretty much backing up the RMA report.

Read the whole thing.

Comments

[The CA]

Wray never said Hinson was a target, only that he was related to the investigation. He was. I don't understand why people keep insisting that Wray lied for linking Hinson to the investigation or cannot understand why Wray might not want to go forward against Hinson out of fear that might hurt the US Attorney's investigation into others. In fact, that is exactly what has happened.

This is really getting ridiculous this inability to understand very simple concepts and the transforming of what Wray actually said into something he never said.

Ahearn should not be writing any more stories on David Wray. Notice how this story is a far cry from the charges of racism made last year. Now suddenly Wray may have gotten into trouble for trying to avoid being labeled a racist. The Rhino has Ahearn and the N&R on the run and now they are trying to backtrack and tidy things up, hoping people will forget their pivotal role in this whole affair and the insinuations they made that have proven false.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, your oft-repeated intepretation of Wray's claim about the multi-jurisdictional investigation seems to be contradicted by Ball's statement that the US Attorney's office gave GPD a green light to do what it had to do. Also, Turnbull was in jail and an investigation had not tied Hinson to his criminal enterprise, details that Wray seems to have kept from his boss.

The views of Scales, Stafford, and Ball seem worth discussing, don't they?

[John D. Young]

It's good that the N&R has re-entered the discussion of the complex Wray fray. We need them engaged with the flow of information.

It does appear that Sam may be right that this is partially an attempt by the N&R to "tidy things up." I also wonder if the N&R actually tried in creative ways over the last several weeks to arrange an interview with Wray.

[The CA]

Ed, the "greenlight" was precisely what Wray was referring to when he went public with the Hinson matter in June, 2005. Why need a "greenlight" if there wasn't concern over the ramifications? Clearly, Anna Mills Wagoner is not happy with the information that has come out as a result of the Hinson mess because of its possible effect on "ongoing" investigations, and has said so in a written memo since this whole thing broke and the Rhino series began. How did Bledsoe know these things about the US Attorney's investigation if not through Wray, and how did Wray know them if not through his investigation of Hinson? The spin that is being played by Mitch Johnson and others is that Wray lied in implying that Hinson was somehow related to the US Attorney's investigation. Hinson clearly was, even if he wasn't a target. Wray NEVER said he was.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, your exculpatory argument seems very convincing to you. Less so to Rick Ball, and to people with more information on what Wray actually said to his bosses about his inability to act due to "a high-level, multi jurisdictional drug case that involved an international cartel, two killings and 'bodies in refrigerators,'" i.e., the Turnbull case.

[sean coon]

but ed, don't you know that rma conspired with the city to get rid of wray? and a "black book" is a derogatory term? and jerry bledsoe doesn't have an agenda?

and as greensboro turns continues after these messages...

[The CA]

Ed, here is what Ball said regarding this issue:

"We were specifically told that James Hinson was not a target," Ball recalled of the meeting with the U.S. attorney's staff, "and that what we would do administratively was a police department matter."

That does not contradict anything I said. Wray did ultimately act after he was assured that he had more evidence and that his investigation would not compromise the US Attorney's investigation. You keep getting hung up on whether Hinson was a "target" which does not matter because he could be just a witness and risk compromising the investigation. This happens all the time with investigations. You pursue a "target" and you come across a witness who has problems of their own, but you don't pursue them right away out of concern that they may compromise the "target" investigation. This isn't hard to understand. I don't know why people are having such a problem with this.

I still believe the Wray angle is only the tip of the iceberg of this story and the city of Greensboro may look quite different if the whole story ever comes out.

[sean coon]

sounds like season two will be shocking!

[Joe Guarino]

Hinson presented a unique political problem for Wray. He knew he would not be supported if he attempted to terminate him. It was suggested in the article that maybe he should have fired him-- but he obviously felt he needed more in order to make any termination stick.

Little mention is made of the more recent findings described in the Bledsoe series that justified the last surveillance attempts on Hinson.

No mention is made of the reported meeting Joe Williams arranged with two City Council members, and the political implications of that.

Otherwise, we have more "he said-she said". We have more folks giving their opinion retrospectively as to what they thought Wray's critical mistake was. (Note all those quoted in the article do not necessarily agree with each other precisely.) And there was nobody quoted suggesting the effort to drive Wray out was ill-conceived, or based on a political imperative.

[Bubba]

"No mention is made of the reported meeting Joe Williams arranged with two City Council members, and the political implications of that."

None at all.

How convenient an "oversight".

The article is just more pushback in an attempt to cover their asses, and those of certain city officials and employees.

[The CA]

It's interesting that the N&R is only now deciding to run a story suggesting that Wray had a reason and support to fire Hinson. A far cry from the sensationalism and unfounded accusations against Wray they printed when they broke the story. Why is Ahearn et al only now suggesting that Wray may not have wanted to fire Hinson because Wray WAS sensitive to the potential for the issue to become viewed as racial. This story is almost a complete reversal of what the N&R has been doing on this subject for the past year.

[sean coon]

maybe it doesn't fit a plot line because the n&r isn't writing a narrative?

[Bubba]

"maybe it doesn't fit a plot line because the n&r isn't writing a narrative?"

Absolutely correct.

Propaganda rarely is done as a narrative..

The N&R is doing a marketing campaign.

Plus, they're making it up as they go along.

[Ed Cone]

Three former senior GPD people were quoted in the article. If they say they were misquoted, or taken out of context, that would be news.

Otherwise, it's hard to argue that this article counts as "making it up."

[mebloginm]

Would anyone here have quit if indeed innocent? I would have fought for the truth.

Why did Wray quit? Stand in Wray's shoes and be innocent.....why quit?

[Bubba]

"Otherwise, it's hard to argue that this article counts as "making it up.'"

Not from the aspect that they are now acknowledging that many folks think they're on the wrong side of this story, for the wrong reasons, and they are fine tuning their responses to fit the situation. Had there not been people hard on their case, we would have thought that the entire citizenry agreed with their line of carefully crafted nonsense.

Not if you take this most recent rebuttal to critics (and that IS an accurate description of the article) as part of the whole series of articles from the very beginning of this issue. That's the major reason for the article to appear at this point.

In the overall context given all the examples, it's hard to defend the notion that they are NOT making it up as they go along.

[Bubba]

"Would anyone here have quit if indeed innocent? I would have fought for the truth."

That's way too simplistic a question to be asked, meb.

Even if you were innocent, would YOU have taken the kind of assault the N&R committed on Wray, and the embarrassing abuse and harassment Johnson carried out on Wray without taking some drastic action to end it?

Why would you enable your enemies to carry out their agenda?

[mebloginm]

If I am innocent I will fight to the end. Wray may not be as guilty as some have made him to be...but my guess is that he is guilty enough...hope I am wrong.

...can't handle much more than simple being me...smile

My greater hope is that we can locate a great leader for GPD so that many issues can be helped. Who is the right person for the job?