LET’R RIP

It all started with a word: “urged.” In January’s Best & Worst issue, under “Campaign Stunt-Bad,” we wrote: “Urged on by rival Marvin Cren-shaw, Mayor Strauss’s maid [Johnielle Garrett] accused her of failing to maintain enough insurance to cover an injury the woman suffered at Strauss’s home.”

Crenshaw, who in another life may have been the Roman emperor Litigious Maximus, promptly made one of his not-infrequent calls to our offices, asking for 1) the source of our knowledge, and 2) the name of the person he should sue. We told him that we had relied on radio reports and published accounts of Garrett’s news conference in which he was quoted. Crenshaw denied that he had ever “urged” Garrett to call the press conference and denounce Strauss.

After a number of phone conversations with Crenshaw and one with Garrett’s husband, who said she would have no further comment, we have pieced together this intriguing scenario:

1. Crenshaw admits attending “several meetings” with Garrett prior to the news conference, but says he did not organize the meetings and that he did not say anything, not one little peep, at the meetings.

1. Asked why he was asked to attend, if he was not going to say anything, Crenshaw said that it was his role in the community to attend such meetings and help people, though he again denies helping Garrett. He added that if an employee of this magazine fell at work and needed help, he would be glad to come to our press conference too.

3. Crenshaw was quoted as saying he tried to use “political heat”on the mayor, though he now denies either saying or doing that, which does paint the curious picture of a mute, helpless, uninvolved Crenshaw mysteriously showing up at meetings and press conferences in which he played no part whatsoever.

4. While Garrett said she had been injured and unable to work since January 11, the press con ference that Crenshaw did not call and at which he did not urge her to do anything was not held until almost four months later. In fact (funny how these coincidences happen), the press con ference was held just four days before the city elections on May 6, 1989. No doubt Garrett had been planning to call a press conference for months, but with one thing and another, it just got put off. We urge you to believe that.



Thanks For Your Note



Why not call January’s “Best & Worst” your “Best, Better Still, Totally Awesome” issue? The really fun thing, heretofore, about the annual Best & Worst is and has been reading The Worst. Who made French fries so greasy that you needed to pick them up with tweezers? Which dry cleaner shredded your leather and suede coat?

Alas, I think you have fallen prey to the “Kinder, Gentler” school of faulty thinking and, unfortunately, you aren’t as much fun.

SHANNON WILLIAMS BROCK

DALLAS

Hue and Cry

Re: “White and Wrong,” your “Thumbs Down” in January. We all know what the minorities have had to go through, and thank goodness it is changing to our advantage. Being a minority myself is not easy, but I don’t sit on my butt all day and cry about being discriminated against. Besides, why would anyone want a job given to them because of their race? It’s an insult because they do not have the smarts to land a job on their own merits.

KIM SUMMER

FORT WORTH

Let me get this straight: for decades the city of Dallas overlooked individual qualifications in order to employ white officers. Now the city once again ignores performance in order to promote minority officers.

Instead of pointing out the logical short-circuit of this policy, you chose to embrace this “two wrongs make a right” thinking by giving the dreaded “Thumbs Down” to officers Eddington, Burke, Henricks, and Lewis. Basing promotions on one’s hue isn’t doing anyone any good unless you wish to announce to the world, “Our police force isn’t really as good as it could be, but boy, oh boy, have we got an even racial mix.”

JAKE LAWSEN

DALLAS

You’re absolutely right! We need to correct the imbalance imposed by racism despite the inherent unfairness of reverse discrimination. Let’s start with the position of editor of D Magazine, not yet filled by a minority. No need to consider whose qualifications would have earned them the job; no one will dare rightfully ask, “Are you there because of your skills or because of your color?”

MARTY DANEMAN

DALLAS

Golly, Wally

Laura Miller’s column [“The Apartment Kids and a Beaver Cleaver School,” January] was almost right on. My son attends another RISD school that is in an even more pronounced social class system.

However. I need to point out a minor flaw in her article. Because all RISD schools are public schools, all children who attend them are neighborhood kids. The term “neighborhood kids” is an insidious slur that seems to be the buzzword for the Republican home-makers who live in their Beaver Cleaver homes. Just because you don’t own a home doesn’t mean you don’t live in the neighborhood.

DENISE DONNELLY JANICK

DALLAS

Why should law-abiding, middle-class families compromise their values and living standards for others that may be in the neighborhood only until their “rent inducement” has expired? I truly believe most homeowners in Lake Highlands (even the Republicans) are sympathetic to the needs of the underprivileged in our neighborhoods. However, that does not mean we are willing to sacrifice or compromise our lifestyle and values so as to accommodate a few liberals.

R. BERRY HAMM

DALLAS



Details, Details



Glenna Whitley did a distinguished piece of reporting on “Technology vs. Trimboli” [January]. Her attention to the facts, the procedures followed by the homicide investigators, the subsequent problems of the district attorney in prosecuting the case, even the comments of the defense staff, all were written with an attention to detail enabling one to reach important conclusions, D Magazine once more did a proper job of informing the public.

JAMES L. MORRIS SR.

PLANO



Wadley: Let it Bleed



I liked your December issue. The “Blood Money” article was reminiscent of the old days at Playboy (late Sixties, early Seventies), when investigative journalism was king of the heap. Nice work.

JOHN WELLS

FORT WORTH



As the senior member of the Wadley family and the only survivor who is knowledge-able of the history of the institution, I am compelled to compliment your editorial staff on its research into conditions at Wadley.

My tenure on the board was 1956 until February 1973. At the time, the institute enjoyed a good reputation medically but it never did credible research. When Joe Hill prematurely advertised a “cure” of the young Hispanic boy who later died [of leukemia], I cautioned him on his quick announcement. He confided in me that he was sure to receive the Nobel Prize.

In 1973 I realized that I could never accomplish anything constructive toward keeping the Wadley Institute as my family intended it to be-a quality institution for teaching, research, and the care of patients with leukemia. [Your story] has helped to assuage my loss of the good faith and good name that Wadley had a long time ago. I have suffered in knowing that Wadley has bad blood and am indebted to Jeff Posey and Glenna Whitley for their public exposure.

Perhaps now, many shall not pay the price for the greed of the few who have put Wadley where it is today.

ELLOINE MOSELEY SINCLAIR

DALLAS