Accusation, denial, accusation

Troublemaker:  “…City Council directed City manger(sic), Mitch Johnson, to separate Miles from the (David Wray) investigation.”   Councilwoman Carmany:  ”This supposed removal is surprising news to me — it didn’t happen!”   Troublemaker:  “It did. You just want to lie….”

Me: I very seriously doubt that, Ben.    More

This entry was posted in Greensboro Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

15 Comments

  1. Posted November 5, 2006 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Hogg,

    So what. Just cuz you doubt things doesnt make them false. You dont know much anyway.

  2. Posted November 6, 2006 at 6:45 am | Permalink

    Perhaps not, Ben. But Carmany’s reply here and at her place says that you got it wrong. (But, for the record, I think Miles SHOULD be distanced from the GPD investigations.)

    Here’s another…

    I received an email from Brian James in response to your allegations regarding his role in informing some citizens about secret recordings made by a GPD officer.

    He wrote…

    “Ben had previously told city leaders that I attended a meeting at a church where I informed citizens that they had been secretly recorded. I sent an e-mail to them (city leaders) several months ago informing them that I attended no such meeting and Ben was also informed of that.

    While browsing your Blog I noticed an exchange between Ben and Councilperson Carmany where he informed her that I told citizens that they were secretly recorded. This exchange took place long after he was informed that I was not there. I don’t know where Ben gets his information, but most of it is fragmented and some of it is inaccurate.

    It concerns me, as a city employee, that he is telling people in positions of leadership that I was involved in something that I was not. It also concerns me because a great number of officers have been hurt by fragmented and inaccurate information that has been disseminated.

    I have no objection to these citizens being informed of the recordings, but I was not the person who informed them. If I was the person who told them, I would have not problem with his comments. I would hope that Ben and all persons who wish to write about the happenings at GPD would verify their information if they are presenting it as factual.”

    Is Brian lying, too? Accuracy is pretty damn important when such public accusations are made.

  3. Posted November 6, 2006 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Yes, Brian is lying.

  4. Posted November 6, 2006 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    He told Delilah

  5. Posted November 6, 2006 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    So? EVERYBODY is lying except Ben?

  6. Posted November 6, 2006 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    In this case yes JW. Do you know ANY facts?

  7. Posted November 6, 2006 at 2:59 pm | Permalink
  8. Posted November 6, 2006 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    I have heard some things, but those aren’t FACTS. Which is why I’m not going around saying things without backing it up.

  9. Jerry Bledsoe
    Posted November 6, 2006 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    David,

    I’m impressed. Obviously, your special relationship with Mitchell Johnson grants you privileges that journalists and others are not allowed.

    You can ask questions of police officers about the ongoing investigation of the department, and the officers you ask apparently are exempt from the gag order imposed on all officers by the city.

    Brian James is a central figure in the police department scandal, but he is free to talk to you while the officers who had no choice but to investigate him and are now being punished aren’t allowed to speak to anybody but their lawyers about what is happening to them. They can’t even talk about it to their wives or their mothers. (And perhaps not to council members, I’ve heard.)

    I have a lot of questions for Brian James. Since you have free access to him and he has an exemption that other officers don’t, can I submit my questions through you and expect answers?

    Jerry

  10. Posted November 6, 2006 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    accusation, denial, accusation, Brian James, Jerry Bledsoe….pretty neat! Bledsoe does ask a very good question. Sandy, since you are reading this thread can you help answer Jerry’s question?

  11. Posted November 7, 2006 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    The city manager issued the instructions to police officers not to speak about the Wray investigation, not the city council, so I do not know the specific wording and what it might allow or not allow. You’ll have to ask Mitch that question to get an informed answer.

    My PURE SPECULATION/GUESS regarding Brian James response to Hogg is that it that had nothing to do with the details/evidence of the case currently under investigation, but addressed an allegation about he supposedly told

  12. Posted November 7, 2006 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Oops — hit the “submit” button accidentally before I completed my answer. Let me try again.

    The city manager issued the instructions to police officers not to speak about the Wray investigation, not the city council, so I do not know the specific wording about what is or is not allowed. You will have to ask Mitchell Johnson that question to get an accurate answer.

    My PURE SPECULATION/GUESS regarding Brian James’ response to Hogg is that it had absolutely nothing to do with the details and/or evidence of the Wray case currently under investigation. He merely corrected an allegation that he supposedly told someone something. In my OPINION, whether he did or not has no connection to restricted private personnel information or the ongoing Wray investigation, therefore, no foul.

    Although councilmembers are not covered by Mitch’s “gag order,” we councilmembers (or most of us, anyway) are complying with the provisions of the state personnel privacy law as well as respecting the need for confidentiality in an ongoing criminal investigation and not revealing details of the case. That is why I have not corrected some of the erroneous information and speculation posted on other blogs — I cannot do so and present the correct information without violating that confidentiality. Thus I remain silent except to keep saying “you’ve got it wrong.” I was able to speak up about the false allegation that city council had ordered Linda Miles off the case because the correct information did not pertain to protected personnel information or evidence in the investigation or break any confidentiality.

  13. Posted November 7, 2006 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Sandy,

    So surveillance is not part of the investigation? others do not have the chance to say anything about surveillance. But James does?

  14. Posted November 8, 2006 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    I do not know what is — and what is not — a part of the investigation so cannot respond accurately to your inquiry. Maybe I missed something, but I do not read anything about surveillance in Brian James’ email to Hogg. All I can find is “I didn’t inform anyone” and “officers have been hurt.”

  15. Posted November 9, 2006 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    “Ben had previously told city leaders that I attended a meeting at a church where I informed citizens that they had been secretly recorded. I sent an e-mail to them (city leaders) several months ago informing them that I attended no such meeting and Ben was also informed of that.

    others involved that have been saiod to have done things cannot respond freely like James did Sandy.

One Trackback

  1. By Hogg’s Blog » Catching up… one issue at a time on November 8, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    [...] It took a few days, but Lt. James responded – in an email.  I posted his response in the comments.  James said, in part… [...]