Jerry Bledsoe continues his series in the Rhino Times with a discussion of the next set of conclusions in the RMA report. The following represents a summary.
1. The RMA report stated a 2005 investigation of James Hinson was authorized by David Wray, and was not related to a federal investigative effort. But Wray did not learn about the investigation until after it had begun. It was related to a federal drug investigation that discovered Hinson's phone number was found in the possession of a drug kingpin.
2. The RMA report indicated that Hinson found a tracker on his vehicle and discovered he was under investigation. But it failed to point out there was nothing inappropriate about placing the tracker on the vehicle.
3. The RMA report indicated Wray was misleading and deceptive with Ed Kitchen, the city manager, when he reported to him about the Hinson investigations during 2005. But the report provided no evidence, and Wray maintained otherwise. Wray felt he was truthful and told Kitchen what he needed to know. RMA suggested Hinson should not have been related to the federal drug investigations; but at one time Hinson's involvement with a drug kingpin was of high interest to the feds.
4. RMA indicated Randall Brady during June 2005 had obtained the 2004 Internal Affairs investigative file on Hinson. But this was untrue. The Ryan Walton file had vanished. Walton had performed a review under the direction of one of Hinson's friends in Internal Affairs, and it turned out to be inadequate. It was not a true investigation.
5. RMA said Wray suspended Hinson without having reviewed any written files that would support his action. Wray had read some of the files, and had been thoroughly briefed by his subordinates regarding the various investigations and reviews. After doing these things, he knew there had been sufficient basis for investigating Hinson.
6. RMA claimed there had been a federal review of Hinson and an internal investigation by Walton, but neither of these were true. RMA further claimed Wray knew or should have known the various investigations did not support Hinson's associating with criminals. But in fact, investigations had uncovered evidence that Hinson had associated with criminals.
7. RMA claimed Wray did a rush job investigating when Hinson's estranged wife made the allegation she was being monitored in her neighborhood. RMA further said his findings could not be supported. In fact, all the essential information was obtained in an efficient way, and disproved Ms. Hinson's allegations. RMA offered no evidence to prove its contentions.
8. RMA said it was not possible to conclude the undercover officer monitoring Ms. Hinson's neighborhood was not doing this for the GPD. But in fact, Wray's investigation demonstrated that he was working for a private attorney on a different matter. Again, RMA offered no evidence. And RMA failed to report that Matt Lojko passed his polygraph on this matter when they grilled him under duress, in violation of proper procedure.
Comments