N&R:

Mitchell Johnson said he and former City Manager Ed Kitchen had received assurances from Wray that the focus on Hinson was the result of a highly sensitive, multijurisdictional criminal investigation that Wray dared not compromise.

In September 2005, Wray ordered a third investigation of Hinson to be done by two former Internal Affairs officers, D.C. Thacker and D.A. Wyrick, hired back solely for that purpose.

Their report, released Tuesday night, would ultimately clear Hinson for a third time, although Mitchell Johnson would not learn of that finding until months later.

Nothing new there: the City's case is that the Chief of Police misled his superiors about the multijurisdictional and internal investigations of James Hinson. If that is true, Wray had to go. If it is not -- if there was a multijurisdictional investigation involving Hinson, and if Wray did inform Johnson that Hinson had been cleared again, then those serious allegations go away.

Does Wray stand by his claim about the multijurisdictional investigation? If so, is there some proof of his claim? Does Wray claim that he did in fact tell his superiors that Hinson had been cleared by internal investigations? Is there documentation of any meetings between City officials and Wray in which this subject was discussed?

UPDATE: Documents released Oct 2 posted at City website.

Comments

[Bubba]

(yawn)

More pushback.

"Nothing new there: the City's case is that the Chief of Police misled his superiors about the multijurisdictional and internal investigations of James Hinson."

Where's the city's documentation?

When do we get the rest of the information the city has about tthe David Wray firing?

Perhaps we will just have to wait for Mitch and Linda's sworn testimony in a court of law, assuming their 5th amendment rights are not invoked.

[Roch101]

"Does Wray claim..."

Good, important questions, but we've had enough of claims and counter claims? It's time that all available documentation in the hands of the employees and representatives of the people of this city release it to the people of this city.

[The CA]

"Mitchell Johnson said he and former City Manager Ed Kitchen had received assurances from Wray that the focus on Hinson was the result of a highly sensitive, multijurisdictional criminal investigation that Wray dared not compromise."

The focus on Hinson was the RESULT of a multijurisdictional investigation in which Hinson's name had emerged, even though he was later deemed not significant in that investigation by the Feds. It was highly sensitive, and is probably still ongoing which is why Anna Mills Wagoner was upset over the Rhino stories and other information that has been made public.

This focus on semantics is really disturbing. Just because Hinson was not the target of the multijurisdictional investigation, does not mean he wasn't a part of it. He clearly was a part of it. Wray never claimed Hinson was the target, only that his investigation was the result of it. Hinson's name comes up of interest to the Feds, they don't pursue Hinson but Wray sees enough bad stuff of State and Local concern to investigate, but wants to do so without blowing the federal case. It's that simple. Mitch's game of splitting hairs over semantics is obvious and designed to for consumption by people incapable of independent thought and weak on comprehension.

[Ed Cone]

It would be helpful to know what Wray actually said to Johnson, and when, and how those statements jibe with the nature and timing of any relevant multijurisdictional investigations.

And it would be helpful to know what Wray actually said to Johnson, and when, about the internal investigations of Hinson, including the Thacker/Wyrick investigation.

[The CA]

I agree with that, Ed.

[Bubba]

"Mitch's game of splitting hairs over semantics is obvious and designed to for consumption by people incapable of independent thought and weak on comprehension."

That's all they've got to prop up a disintegrating meme.