Frank Mickens interviews Bellamy-Small

Update: The link to the interview is working.

Although I can’t get last night’s Frank Mickens WFMY interview with Dianne Bellamy-Small to play past the commercial, I can pass along this quote from the embattled councilwoman…

“…I have been set up…”

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

25 Comments

  1. Posted November 13, 2006 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    Is anybody else thinking that Greensboro needs a change in leadership – some fresh leadership not all wrapped up in corruption and greed?

  2. Posted November 13, 2006 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    Another thing Bellamy-Small said:

    Mickens: Why did you not take the lie detector test?

    Small: I did not take it because I did not do it.

    I also thought the scattered story about her report and her notebook and her bag and her mailbox was really informative.

    Small (not exacts buyt very close to a part of her interview): I went to my mail box and it wasnt there and I went to my car and it wasnt there. So I came back and found my notebook.

    She should have just remained silent.

  3. Posted November 13, 2006 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    I am able to play the video with this link.

  4. tonz8
    Posted November 13, 2006 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Just a question. Doesn’t Greensboro’s Charter allow a council member to be recalled from office. I believe you have to petition for it and gather signatures of at least 25% of the total voters in the last election. That might not be too hard since there was low voter turnout last Tuesday.
    Just a question. Anybody know?

  5. Posted November 13, 2006 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    From Artice II, Section 2.71 of the city charter:

    “c) (1) The voters of the city shall have the power, which shall be known as the recall power, to remove from office any member of the City Council.
    (2) Voters seeking the recall of any member of the council shall proceed by way of a recall petition addressed to the council identifying the council member concerned, requesting his/her removal from office and stating the grounds alleged for his/her removal. With respect to any council member elected at large, any recall petition must be filed with the city clerk and must be signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to at least 25% of the qualified voters of the city who voted at the last preceding election of city council members. With respect to any city council member elected from a district, any recall petition must be filed with the city clerk and must be signed by qualified voters of that council member’s district equal in number to at least 25% of the qualified voters of such district who voted at the last preceding election for its city council member.”

  6. Posted November 13, 2006 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    you know, if she’s telling the truth, she has a good point about the n&r. they could easily come out and say that they didn’t receive the report from her and still protect their source.

    and if she was the leaker, she’s essentially given them permission in this interview to speak up. their standard for protecting sources wouldn’t be tarnished if they outed her now.

  7. Posted November 13, 2006 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    I won’t speak for the paper, but in general, I won’t name OR clear a source. The main reason is that for all I know, the person asking me to rule someone out has some info through which he can engage in a process of elimination to identify my source if I rule someone else out.

    And for the record, I don’t know who the paper’s source was on the RMA report and don’t know of anyone who DOES know besides JR and the reporters on the story.

  8. Posted November 13, 2006 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Coon,

    If she was telling the truth she would not have ran from the lie detector test. She didnt leak it to the N&R. She did give it out and was the only person of official capacity to hand it out. She just did not think it would have come to this. The bottom line is she can clear her name by taking a lie detector test. But she would fail it. She is not set up. However, this story is not without people being set up.

  9. Posted November 13, 2006 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    @ben:

    “She did give it out and was the only person of official capacity to hand it out. She just did not think it would have come to this.”

    interesting…

    from what i gather, her defense is that somehow, the document went walking — that she couldn’t find it for a period of time, which insinuates that she feels someone copied it during that period and then leaked it.

    playing along with her line of reasoning doesn’t necessarily mean someone tried to set her up, it just means that her copy of the report was left in an accessible place and someone pulled a move similar to the document copying from the movie “the firm.”

    playing along even further, who would have such knowledge or access?

    the problem with taking the lie detector test now is that a false positive could occur, which is why lie detector tests aren’t admissible in court. it seems to me that the only way we’ll know — for sure — if DBS gave a copy to someone, is if the n&r outs their source, who then dishes the dirt as to how they got their copy.

    but my gut reaction is that she looks as guilty as michael jackson in disneyland.

  10. tonz8
    Posted November 14, 2006 at 2:35 am | Permalink

    Can you confirm this Lex? DBS won by 49 votes over L. Falls in 2005, 1491 votes to 1442 votes. A total of 2933 votes cast so it would only take 733 signatures in her district to recall her from office? And do you think residents of District 1 would take this action? With the election being that close it certainly sounds like they could gather the signatures needed.

  11. Mick Riggs
    Posted November 14, 2006 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Why won’t she sign an afidavit? They are not subject to “false positives”.

  12. Posted November 14, 2006 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Good point on lie detector tests, Sean.

    Good point on the affidavit, Mick.

  13. Posted November 14, 2006 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Actually, polygraphs can be allowed in court cases. Depends on individual jurisdiction as provided by the Supreme Court decision of United States v. Scheffer (1998).

    It’s an urban myth that polygraphs are not admissible. If you don’t believe Wikipedia, then read it from the American Polygraph Association.

  14. Posted November 15, 2006 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    “It’s an urban myth that polygraphs are not admissible.”

    No, it is not an urban myth. In North Carolina, polygraphs are not admissible in any trial, civil or criminal.

  15. Posted November 15, 2006 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    spot on, mick.

  16. Posted November 15, 2006 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    Tell me you read all of my comment. Let’s go at it again:
    “Actually, polygraphs can be allowed in court cases. Depends on individual jurisdiction as provided by the Supreme Court decision of United States v. Scheffer (1998).”

    Individual jurisdiction. Not to mention I wrote polygraphs “can” be allowed in court cases. Not “are” allowed in all court cases.

    When Sean made this comment:
    “the problem with taking the lie detector test now is that a false positive could occur, which is why lie detector tests aren’t admissible in court.”

    I was correcting that. I’ve also checked with him and he’s told me that he was stating in general. Since that IS an urban myth.

    In any case, what would it matter if it was inadmissible to NC court anyways? The polygraph that the city council members took wasn’t being used for evidence of any kind in any trial. If you read up on polygraphs, there is a average accuracy of 98%. Also note that polygraphs can be inconclusive. In any case, you’re grasping at straws.

  17. Posted November 15, 2006 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    hey ben, you little anal-bot! we’re in NC, so it doesn’t matter, does it?

    man, i thought i had issues about being wrong… heh.

  18. Posted November 15, 2006 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    better watch it there bub. Conservatives might condemn me by reading too much into that term. I prefer to be called: “detailed oriented”. :p

  19. Posted November 15, 2006 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    you kill me, man.

  20. Posted November 15, 2006 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    detail oriented. Stupid details. ARGH. detail. ehh… too long to type. Just call me “DO”.

  21. Posted November 15, 2006 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Or we could call Darkmoon “D’OH!”

  22. Posted November 15, 2006 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    Sweet. Just call me D’OH!moon. bwahahaha.

  23. Posted November 16, 2006 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    “I wrote polygraphs “canâ€? be allowed in court cases. ” — Darkmoon

    Right, and in NC, they cannot — ever.

    “If you read up on polygraphs, there is a average accuracy of 98%.” — Darkmoon

    If you read up on sources other than from the American Plolgraph Association, you’ll find a different story, like a false positives one out of eight times on average.

    I wouldn’t have taken a polygraph test under any circumstances. It’s inconclusive, didn’t resolve a damn thing in this circumstance, has a chance for error and the results weren’t documented by the examiner in writing. I would, however, have signed an affidavit or, had I shared the report, explained why.

  24. Posted November 16, 2006 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    If there is on average, 1 in 8 false positives then that would mean that statistically speaking, we would have seen one of the other city council members ring up. That’s by your numbers since there are 9 total, and 1 out.

    “Right, and in NC, they cannot — ever.”
    You can still contest it. Every single case after that failed since they couldn’t prove it to be useful to overturn the 1983 ruling. But if you look at timelines and at the cases themselves, there were issues with each case there anyways.

    Like I said before, makes no difference in this case since it has nothing to do with a trial.

    In either case, it makes no difference since DBS has done neither the polygraph nor the affidavit.

    “It’s inconclusive, didn’t resolve a damn thing in this circumstance, has a chance for error and the results weren’t documented by the examiner in writing. I would, however, have signed an affidavit or, had I shared the report, explained why.”
    Polygraphs aren’t documented? uhh.. okay. Yes they are. Results are documented. But as for inconclusive, you can say the same about pretty much anything then. Everything has error, everything has deviation. Hell, voting does. Even affidavit. What’s to say you’re not lying about what you sign? I’ve known plenty of people that could give you the totally blank stare when it came to something that they did and would sign anything. No error in that? Come on.

  25. Posted November 18, 2006 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    “I wouldn’t have taken a polygraph test under any circumstances.”

    Well then….local bloggers will throw you in jail because you are clearly guilty… :)

One Trackback

  1. [...] In the comments at Hoggard’s site, Greensboro 101 provided a link to WFMY’s interview with Dianne Bellamy-Small that I could download. [...]