To the Editor:
The editorial board of the Daily Chronicle in its Nov. 14 “Our View” titled “Shake-up with NIU police is a necessary step” was wrong when it described NIU Police Chief Donald Grady’s 2009 reinstatement as being the result of only “a performance review.”
The documents from 2009, which I have in front of me – I found them easily on the Internet – clearly describe investigations based on “witness testimony” by independent groups experienced and respected in both the law and policing.
In truth, both an independent review panel led by John Nickels – a former Illinois Supreme Court justice – and the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation examined allegations against Grady. These investigations found “there was no evidence of misconduct or inappropriate actions by Chief Donald Grady” and that “the criminal allegations attributed to Chief Grady were unfounded.”
The truth, which led to Grady’s reinstatement back in 2009, appears to be more than just the “performance review” indicated by the editorial board. So, why would the editorial board leave out these facts? Could it be that it would not support some ultimate goal of theirs? Just read the editorial of Nov. 14. In their opinion, Grady is guilty of “poor leadership,” and they are salivating over Judge Robbin Stuckert’s Nov. 2 finding “that NIU police intentionally withheld witness statements from prosecutors” in the hope that “university officials” will get Grady to “walk away.”
The proper authorities will investigate the current allegations of the mishandling of evidence, salivating editors or not. Moreover, they will issue a finding or ruling, and they will hold Grady accountable – just like he was back in 2009. However, can we trust the editorial board’s description of these events? Can the editorial board write the facts, as I have done here, just as easily as vague phrases such as “performance review” and “past trouble spots”?
Words and facts, these are the tools of their trade, correct? Perhaps the editorial board should construct their opinions on facts, not their own prejudices.