January 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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 31          

« Buffett, Muntz, and Level 3 | Main | Oh yeah, didn't they have something to do with 9/11? »

Feb 08, 2008


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

Don Moore

You release that he could have done this at his weekly press conference or his own blog???

Oops, I'm sorry, he never followed though on those promises.

Jonathan Jones

City of Greensboro: "Other than the one paragraph, this document only meets the description as provided by the News and Record’s request in that it is a two page document."

Wow. That's a pretty thin hook to hang your hat on.

Let's take a look at what Margaret requested: "The two-page memo Tom Fox and Scott Sanders wrote summarizing the rationale behind the 'black book.'"

Is it a two page memo? Check.
Does it summarize the rationale behind the "black book?" Check.
Was it written by Scott Sanders? Check.
Was it written by Tom Fox? No.

So the city wants to say that a record request that was only inaccurate by attributing authorship to an extra person makes it so substantially different that it can't be found? That's just amazing.

The public shouldn't have to make its requests to see documents created on its behalf so narrow that it would have had to already looked at the document to know what to request.

Doug H

Regarding Mitch's first "fact":

The News and Record request did not match the document in question.

JR's response to that in the "Debatables" blog at the N&R today at 8:42 am:

"To the idea that our request wasn't specific enough, I respond that neither Ben Holder nor John Hammer had any trouble identifying the document we asked for."

And that's just from a first-glance quick read.


Other than it is black, this document only meets the description you provided in that it is a book.


"the memo in question is another nail in that coffin!!!"
Aint that the truth only I think Mitch has it backwards.

Billy The Blogging Poet

Here's a couple of links that might interest Greensboro:



Oops! That was three-- sorry.

Billy The Blogging Poet

Sorry, let's try this:


and here

Ed Cone

Billy, you write about last night's murder spree that "Kirkwood, Missouri, just like Greensboro, North Carolina, failed to properly deal with the real issues and paid the ultimate price."

What evidence do you have that Kirkwood was in the wrong on any issues pertaining to the killer?

The parallel you attempt with Greensboro is grotesque.



Should the City staff have caught this earlier as "the" requested document, no doubt. However the explanation does make sense to me.

I am a bit confused here with all of the drama. Yes this document is important. However to me it shows that Chief Wray lied to the manager when he stated it didnt exist but then asked Brady to lock it in his trunk. Why does everyone continually miss this point??

If the book was used innocently as proclaimed in that memorandum, why did they lie about? Why did they try to hide it?

In addition, didnt RMA suggest that the Chief possibly took documents from his office before leaving. Well that seems to be a no brainer. Every time we turn around Ben Holder or the Rhino seems to have access to important documents which they can freely release but the City is banned because of pending legalities. Maybe the truth to this sordid drama is somewhere in the middle. (Maybe not) Either way certain segments of this community have been relentlessly scrutinzing actions by the City, personlizing attacks on the manager, writing intimidating articles against council that doesnt agree with their conservative views, when it is all in the best interest of their bottom line. (advertisement) hmmmmmmmmm....


He isn't a very good liar and he keeps getting in deeper.



The manager's response is full of self-contradictions and assertions that are at odds with the facts. Spagnola has done a great job of clearly pointing out the absurdities and inconsistencies.

Every city council person should read Spag's post.

Dave Ribar


You make some great points, the main one being that the document proves that a "black book" of photo line-ups did exist at least as early as July 2005. The memo also confirms that it was used as part of one investigation.

The City Manager should have produced this document sooner. But there is nothing here that exonerates the Wray administration.



"But there is nothing here that exonerates the Wray administration."

Exonerate him from what? There is no evidence of wrongdoing here. If anything, the two page memo makes that pretty clear which is why Johnson and the legal department didn't want it made public. That is the whole point.

Thanks for the push, Roch. We're getting there.


"But there is nothing here that exonerates the Wray administration." -- Dave

That depends on the accusation, no? If the accusation was that there was a book of black police officers being shown to every criminal in the county as a way to target and intimidate officers because of their race, as the RMA report asserted, then yes, this memo exonerates* the Wray administration of that charge.

If the accusation was that Wray did not produce documents on demand, then no, this document is not exoneration. But then we must consider how culpable are public employees for not producing information they claim wasn't described specifically enough.

[* I leave open the possibility that the memo to Brady could itself be inaccurate, but proving that the line-up wasn't shown to every criminal in the county, is to prove a negative. To prove that the line-up book was used for purposes other than those asserted in the memo, one would need to find an example of some other use. No such example is known. Although the RMA Report asserted that the line-up book was used for nefarious purposes, it didn't provide any substantiation, not even that one example that would dispute the explanation in the memo to Brady.]


RMA Report
Page 26
Paragraphs 1 and 2

That's all you need to know. If Mitch Johnson had read the report that he commissioned before he confronted David Wray, he would have known about the "black book" being a line-up book and the memo that Officer Sanders wrote. Sorry, but Mitch lies, Nick. You and Mitch just can't spin yourselves out of it.

And, as has been said, the book and the memo are not what's important. What's important is whether the line-up book was used illegally. No one has ever proven or shown documentation that it was used for any other purpose than which Officer Sanders said it was.


Sorry Roch101, that can be proven. ask officer A. HlLL about his encounter with the prostitute that alleged the assault. Sanders says that he does not want to release her name because he is afraid for her safety. HOGWASH!! The fact remains that there was no photographic line up or line ups of any white officers, even though Sanders states the victim said that a white officer was present. i don't care how you all twist the facts or other details. the issue of discrimination rest soley on this fact and the fact that there has never been any attempt to identify any white officer in any investigation using the same method.


Where does Sanders state that, and did the prostitute claim she was assaulted by a white officer?



You lost me, how does the presence of a white officer prove RMA's claims that the line-up book was shown to prostitutes and drug dealers throughout the county?


It doesn't. It proves that white officers were not subjected to the same type of investigative procedures initiated by Sanders, Brady and others.


Spag, don't you think it would very important to, at least, to identify the other officer that was allegedly present?

Actually i believe it was D. Wray whom stated that they wanted to protect her name.


Read the memo more carefully. Sanders says that she only mentioned a "white officer" in a LATER interview, eight months after she was shown the photo lineup we all know and love as the "black book". She was then shown more photos on a computer.



1. Do you concur than that RMA's claim about the way the line-up book was used remains unsubstantiated?

2. Did the victim/witness say that a white officer was present before the line-up book was created or did she bring up a white officer later?

3. Did the victim/witness accuse the white officer?

4. Where can we find documentation supporting your version of events?


The second group of photos she was shown in October of 2003 on the computer was the entire GPD, white and black.

There goes your theory.


In the last paragraph, Sanders refers to the use of a photo lineup in 2005 regarding an "unrelated" matter. No white officer was mentioned. This is the same usage of the lineup that Ken Keller refers to in the letter posted tonight on Ben's site. It is the 2005 lineup that involves the "black book" in question, not the 2003 incident.

Sorry if there was any confusion.


go back and compare D. Wray's statements too Sanders statements. Also read the memo carefully. very few of those officers look similar, if any. as of this date why has she not been able to identify the officer? look at your accuser,she is a PROSTITUTE/SNITCH!! how reliable is she? the officers in the line ups ranged from 6'6" to 5'6", from dark complexion to very light complected skin tones, heck one of the guys even had a beard. so, you folks actually believe that this line up was legit? Again find Officer A. HILL, who is white. he can put your myths to rest.


Change the subject to something even more irrelevant. Should her story not be investigated just because she is a prostitute? There is no information provided about height nor does she describe complexion.

You are in denial.


In Sanders memo, he mentioned a alone white officer being present. he states that around February 2003 and in October 2003( EIGHT MONTHS elapsed!!) she was shown another set of photos, Why and for What reason?


By the way did you all notice that James Hinson was not in the Black Book that was viewed by city council, even though Sander says in his memo that this information pertains to investigations that were conducted on James Hinson?


If someone was considered an informant who should be reliable they should be able to describe an officer in uniform ,with a name tag, that assaulted her at least twice. should that investigation take over eight months is the question? why change the subject?

Billy The Blogging Poet

Of course there were no white officers in the line up book. As a matter of fact of the 60 or so pictures in the line up book (19 of which were GPD officers) none of the photos were of white officers.

There were also no women, Asians, Indians or other minorities in the book because the “victim” had already made the claim that the officer was a black male.

Why would anyone other than black males be put in a line up book when she had already claimed the officer was black and had already stated she never got a good look at the white officer who remained at the door?


by the way Mitch could not have read the report before he question Wray about the book. no one knew about the memo until Sanders and Fox were investigated. This was Sanders attempt to save his own tail because he knew that he would be blamed for everything. the memo was addressed to Brady, not Mitch Johnson. Let Brady explain why he did not disclose the memo to RMA!!




The RMA report refers to the memo on Page 26. The RMA report was completed before Johnson met with Wray.

If Mitch put you up to these lame responses, he once again is showing his incomptence.

Why does it seem that Connie Mack Jr is back?


Hinson wasn't in the lineup because Hinson wasn't on duty. Sanders only mentions Hinson because he was assigned the specific task of investigating Hinson, and this incident came up during that investigation. Sanders investigates, and finds out Hinson isn't involved. But he still has a complaint against a GPD officer, so he prepares a lineup of on duty officers that could be suspects. Hinson wasn't in the lineup because he wasn't on duty.

This shows that GPD was NOT out to get Hinson. Sanders also mentions in his memo that the memo refers to all uses of photo lineups by him in the course of investigating Hinson and "any other complaints" against "city of Greensboro employees".

The Hinson argument offered by William is a red herring.


Okay,once again the memo was addressed to Brady. from Sanders. What difference does all of this make? the ISSUE that is going to cost the city millions of dollars is the DISCRIMINATION!! Why all the side bar issues?


Spag, this is for you. You are assuming that the investigations in which Ekwensi was shown photographs on two separate dates their was two different complaints? were those complaints against any specific black officer? was it even a complaint? if so what was the complaint? again she mentioned alone white officer. What efforts did Sanders make to identify that officer, who later turned out to be C. McMinn. There was no photographic line created to identify him. Its not all about Hinson.

Billy The Blogging Poet

The black book consisted of 19 black male officers who were on duty the night of the alleged crime PLUS a whole bunch of photographs of known criminals that were picked by a computer.

All total there were 60 some photographs in the line up book so I've no doubt they wouldn't all look alike.

Hinson was off duty that night. As much as I'd like to bury Hinson in this there appears to be no evidence that he was involved THIS TIME.

And William, other than you everyone on this thread knows everyone else personally, but most of us have no idea who your are and for that reason you are less than credible.

You see, many times we've seen these mystery commenters appear out of thin air and they almost always turn out to be shrills.


Isn't it interesting that the pushback on these newly revealed facts has been conducted by only ONE poster, and not to any effect at all?

When does Mitch Johnson finally get the message?

When do the enablers, which include certain members of city council, our media, and local blahgers finally get the message?

Ben Holder

"What efforts did Sanders make to identify that officer, who later turned out to be C. McMinn. There was no photographic line created to identify him. Its not all about Hinson."

Actually, the photo line up for white boyz was being made by Scooter. But, when Mcminn (who was Scooter's boss) learned it was being made, he quickly came clean and reported he was there but left when the strippers came.

Dave Ribar


Your observation is only interesting for its inaccuracy. Nick, William, and I have all pushed back on this. My guess is that others recognize the collective MDS (Mitch Derangement Syndrome) and the folly of trying to contribute.

We don't hide innocent investigative tools in the trunk of a car.

Jim Roenberg

When can Chief Wray come out from behind Jerry's apron and answer direct questions?


"We don't hide innocent investigative tools in the trunk of a car."

You're not paying attention, are you, Dave?

That rationale has been long discredited. It was laughable when first dreamed up long ago, and it's absolutely hilarious now as a desperate attempt to defend the undefendable.

Anything else?


"When can Chief Wray come out from behind Jerry's apron and answer direct questions?"

Ah, more hashed over pushback!

Why don't you ask his attorney that question?

The enablers are desperate, aren't they?

Ed Cone

I missed the part where hiding, er, securing, the "black book" in the trunk after denying knowledge of its existence was discredited as a question and no longer of interest in this case.

Jonathan Jones

Bubba, why does this have to boil down to a Mitch Johnson-crowd vs. David Wray-crowd fight?

Isn't it possible that both Wray's handling of the police department and Johnson's handling of city hall have shown flashes of incompetence?

Jim Rosenberg

Bob, I'll ignore the Middle School rhetoric as usual annd hereby stipulate that I got burned and you rule in perpetuity. As for the substance, I've long ago lost confidence in Mitch Johnson and have said so here. Still, there are many legitimate questions about Chief Wray's s carefully manicured version of events. The legal jeopardy he faces is not absolute, and appears to be shrinking. It seems like he ought to be able to stand up and provide some answers, even if not all. Bob, I mean this to be about something not me so I agree in advance to your label and insult.


"Let Brady explain why he did not disclose the memo to RMA!!" -- William

Get your facts straight. The memo was in the RMA report.

Also, I posted 4 relevant questions for you above. They remain unanswered.



And you know this how?

Dave Ribar


From the Nov. 22, 2005 interview:

Longmire: And where is that book now?

Brady: In the trunk of my car.


Longmire: Was there ever any discussion between you and Chief Wray or others after the book was found, what to do now about the book and about the allegation that there was this black book?

Brady: He told me to secure it and be sure that I held on to it.


Longmire: ... Did the police chief ever direct you to order an investigation into that allegation that there was a black book and that it was being used inappropriately -- by members of your department to single out black officer as being the target of an investigation?

Brady: No sir.

Longmire: Okay. So the -- you -- you put it in your trunk and it has stayed there since...

Brady: He told...

Longmire: ...he told you to put it in the trunk? You've not shown it to anyone else?


So Bubba, what part of the black book being hidden in the trunk of a car is discredited?


Ed, you missed the part where Wray said that he told Johnson about the photo lineup on July 11, 2005 and Johnson did not seem interested.

This was three days after Wray learned of the photo lineup and Brady was concerned about other officers getting a hold of it, so he put it in his trunk.

If Wray's story is correct, then Johnson isn't telling the truth when he claims that Wray hid it from him. Maybe Johnson should release his notes from his meeting with Wray on July 11th. Oh wait. Can't do that. Not a public record.


The comments to this entry are closed.