Little Red and White Signs Still Impact Lee County Politics

Mike Stone Caught in Own Words

It was turning out to be more than he had bargained for--Steve Thomas didn't think that falsifying an election report was too big a deal. When a reporter from the Sanford Herald started asking questions that very night he began to get that nagging feeling in his gut he had got more than he bargained for when he agreed to his role in a conspiracy to cover for one of the people involved with some little red and white signs. When Thomas heard from Herald reporter Gordon Anderson that Jamie Kelly denied even knowing him, he could see the plan was to leave him holding the bag.

He turned to his friend and budding business partner in the purchase of Goodfellows, Mike Stone, and gave him the story. Whether the idea to call the "victim", Herb Hincks, to apologize and say he had made a mistake was Stone's or Thomas's, we may never know. Meanwhile, the pressure mounted as the e-Lee Dispatch had tracked him down by phone.

Stone himself made at least three calls: one to the e-Lee Dispatch and two prominent office holders - one that night and the other the next morning. There is no question in the minds of the office holders that Stone said Thomas had told him that Sanford City Detective Kevin Bryant was one of "two close friends". The story is further confirmed by District Attorney, Susan Doyle, who clearly remembers being called while on vacation at the beach about the matter.

By mid-morning the next day, when contacted for more information, Stone said Thomas had retained prominent Sanford attorney, Jonathan Silverman, and Thomas had "clammed up". So it turned out, had Mike Stone. Despite his claim the previous night of hearing it from the horses mouth, he dismissed that as "just a rumor" saying he had to be have been misunderstood. A check with the others he had talked with found each one recalled that Stone was clear that he got his information directly from Thomas.

As time passed, this change in position began to trigger other questions. If Thomas told Stone one of the names of the friends, wouldn't human nature seem to make it likely that Thomas had told Stone both names? Other questions arose: As a city councilman, taking an oath to uphold the law, did he not have an obligation to turn his first-hand information over to the city manager and chief of police? Faced with such a claim neither of them could no longer dismiss the matter as just a rumor.

Was Stone covering for his friend and business partner whose best chance seems to "cut a deal" by giving up the names of the friends who approached him? After all, suborning perjury is a more serious crime than the perjury committed when Thomas signed the form. And Kelly's filing of an accurate form the day after Thomas did showed that Kelly, not Thomas, had ordered the signs leaving Thomas holding the bag.

Others have speculated that when you own a small grocery store that does a big business in beer kegs, a wine store, and now a night club, he might want to avoid a confrontation with a powerful police chief who is accountable to no one. A chief with no desire to hear first hand questions about a detective so closely associated with him politically. Otherwise, how would he sweep it under the rug as "rumor."

As more and more people learned of Stone's involvement, plans for him to be the Littiken candidate for county chair began to be more risky. He was personally and indirectly urged to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities on his own. Finally, about a month ago, he and Littiken twisted arms of some GOP leaders and others to meet at a Jonesboro restaurant. For the first time, Stone produced someone he claimed "was with him" when he made the phone calls to collaborate that he never attributed his source of information directly to Thomas. Yet, he claimed to have a "pretty good idea" who the other person was--a name already in circulation as rumor but neither confirmed or denied to us.

Why wouldn't a city councilman because of his oath and office disclose the direct information he has? At some point he may have to answer the question of what his friend and business partner told him under another kind of oath. All this just adds more mystery to a case with so much known and yet so many unanswered questions.