Unless I'm reading this story (via InstaPundit) incorrectly, it's clear that either the New York Times lied (when they quoted Chief Compass as saying that firearms were to be confiscated) or New Orleans' Police Superintendant Compass lied when he denied making the statements.

But perhaps I am being hasty. Perhaps a little interpretation is in order.

Let's look at the statement Compass allegedly made, according to the Times:

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.

No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

....any and all statements which are allegedly attributed to him in such regard do not represent any policy, statement, ordinance, regulation, decision, custom or practice of either C. Ray Nagin or the City of New Orleans, its agencies and/or departments;

3. C. Ray Nagin and P. Edwin Compass, III affirmatively deny that seizures of lawfully possessed firearms from law abiding citizens has occurred as a result of the actions of officers, city officials, employees and/or agents of the City of New Orleans or any of its departments and further affirmatively deny that any such weapons are presently in the possession of the City of New Orleans, its agents and/or departments;

If the chief is right, that has to mean the New York Times lied.

Unless, of course, you believe the New York Times. Does the mere fact that they have not issued a correction mean that they are standing behind their story?

Might my interest in "interpreting" Chief Compass's statement be premature? Either he said it or he did not. As a threshold issue, I would like to establish whether he did say it.

I'm wondering whether there's any way to do that.

Should we take the New York Times at its word?

What about ABC News? They offered the following (much-referenced) quote from Deputy Chief Warren Riley:

ABC News quoted New Orleans’ deputy police chief, saying, "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."

But even that might be hasty.

Note that the above-referenced denial only includes "any and all statements which are allegedly attributed to him" (meaning Compass). Absent any showing of the existence of a chain of command (of which I've seen no evidence) I think the deputy's statements can be interpreted as providing the chief with a loophole.

On the other hand, the existence of a chain of command in New Orleans might undermine the denial.

The problem is, I can't prove the unprovable.

(This may be a quagmire.)

UPDATE (09/27/05 03:56 p.m.): Superintendent Compass has resigned:

New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass announced his resignation Tuesday after four turbulent weeks in which the police force came under fire for its conduct in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath.