The Question the D&C Won't Ask about Chief Moore's OusterSince our piece appeared on Monday, local broadcast media have begun to inquire about the reason for Mayor Duffy's summary dismissal of Rochester Police Chief David Moore. We'll see if they press for answers.
Meanwhile, the Democrat and Chronicle just can't bring itself to confront the glaring central question: WHY? What's the real reason?
The paper's tepid editorial yesterday was about as tentative as you can get, focusing on procedure and timing, not the decision itself. Not, "Why did the Mayor do it?," but "Why so abruptly?" As if the big issue were one of mere presentation, with the focus on Chief Moore deserving a more dignified exit. That he did, but acknowledging it doesn't address the core question.
As if they realized "We really have to say something," the paper's editorialists watered down their comment until it was bereft of substance.
Yet if it lacked substance it had purpose: to come to Mayor Duffy's aid by whitewashing the episode. To deflect attention to related, but collateral issues. Communication. Dignity. Timing.
But no mention at all of the real timing question: why right after the election, when it was clearly thought out before? What was it about this incident that Duffy didn't want discussed before an election in which he was a candidate?
Not even a mention of any of the other questions that would occur immediately to a first-year journalism student.
"Duffy told this page that Moore 'was not fired or demoted'" said the D&C, parroting the Mayor's pallid defense without question or scrutiny. The "transition" should have been "a lot smoother."
All just a matter of presentation, the D&C subtly tries to convince us, from describing the act in the passive voice -- "So why was the move made so abruptly?" instead of "So why did the Mayor move so abruptly?" -- to its use of the dishonest euphemism "transition." Nothing to see here folks. Just move along, now.
All of which highlights the core question even more starkly:
WHY did the Mayor dump Chief Moore?
1 comment:
I have some questions too. Paul, Sr, Paul V Jr.'s dad called me a few days ago. He said his wife got my tel from a post I made about this story on Rachel Barnhardt's FB where Rachel uncovers the fat that the RPD called off the first cop responders because it was shift change and that meanst overtime pay if the call was not transferred to the next shif. Hence, the cops were late to respond. My friend, Brad, is/was very close with Paul. Paul had dinner every week at Brad's house. There is a pic on Brad's FB of Paul with Brad's 3 year old son sitting on Paul's lap a few days before his murder. Paul, Sr. wants to know why the RPD did not give him his son's cell tel, wallet & police report. My friend, Brad, who was very close with Paul, called me last night. Brad had already told me that Paul called Brad on Sunday night, about one hour before Paul was shot, to tell Brad that Paul would not be able to make their regular weekly Monday dinner at Brad's house the next day. Brad wants to know why the RPD has not called him since Brad's tel # was on Paul's cell phone. Why has the RPD not called all of Pauls tel calls to see who was doing what? Find the killer.
The question is why has the RPD not called all tel calls on Paul's cell, including a call to Brad. Duh. Trace all contacts Paul had in the days before his murder. Maybe I should be RPD Chief if these guys can't do simple police work. Does not surprise me though. My 4 incidents in the past 2 years with RPD, including the police riot of October 7, 2009, give me very little confidence in our police dept.
Post a Comment