Evening star., 1950-06-01


for a period beginning November
%. 1949, to the beginning of tn,
Police day on December IL, 1949
which was approved. Capt. Rich.
lit returned to duty on December
Is, 1949. He was absent without
leave for three days.
CONCLUSION: The evidence
of this act is SUFFICIENT to prove
violation of an official order of
the Police Department and alb
sence from duty without ap-
proval Of a superior officer.
3. On February /, 1850, Mai
Barrett directed Capt. Richitt tc
make a report with respect to the
absence Of arrests in the third
precinct for violation of the gam
ing laws during the fiscal year
ending June 80. 1949. This report
was never received. Mai. Barrett
repeated the order to 1t. Henry
H. Heflin of the third precinct
on February IL and 1t. Heflin
stated that he had never received
such an order from Capt. Richitt
with respect to such a report. 1t
Hef1in sent in a report of his ef-
forts to suppress gambling for the
period from July /, 1949.
CONCLUSION: The facts
summarized above are sufficient
to show disobedience of an Of
fetal order of the major and
superintendent.
4. On the night of February %,
1850, Inspector William j. Cum
ningham states that he advised
Capt. Richitt of his transfer to No.
8 precinct. Capt. Richitt stated
to him that he didn't have to take
orders from any one and he was
mot going to take it lying down
and if "he" wanted a battle he
would give it to him. Capt.
Richitt stated to Inspector Cum
ningham that he had told news
papermen that he was not going
to report to No. 8 precinct. This
is admitted by Capt. Richitt.
CONCLUSION: The evidence
summarized above is sufficient
to show rank insubordination
and conduct prejudicial to the
reputation and good order of the
Metropolitan Police Department.
S. On the night of March 2,
1850. Capt. Richitt held a press
conference at his home. In the
course of this press conference,
Capt. Richitt stated:
(a) That he was going to give
"the real reason for my transfer"
which he stated was because he
led two raids on gambling estab-
lishmentS in the third precinct
reputedly controlled by one En-
mitt Warning.
(b) He also stated that there
was an apparent attempt by
Emmitt Warning to bribe him.
Capt. Richitt admits that he never
made an official report of this at
tempt to bribe him to his Dis
trict Inspector. the Executive
Officer of the Police Department
nor the major and the superin-
tendent.
Co Capt. Richitt also stated
at the press conference II said !
was going to shoot the load. Now
1 am going to shoot it," He went
on to state that Maj. Barrett had
old him a Third Precinct police
man was pumping" a book Of a
gambler in the Third Precinct. He
said that Maj. Barrett had told
him about it. 1t appeared. Capt
Richitt state, that Maj. Barrett
had been told about the policeman
by Emmitt Warning Capt. Richitt
offers no evidence in support OF
such charge.
I'd He stated in the course of
the press conference, IF you
think I am going to take this
lying down CHS transfer) you are
wrong. I want to be heard by
someone and I don't care by who
on these charges"
(e) On March 8, 1850, Richitt
admits that he gave information
to the Washington Post that 1t.
Roy Blick, vice squad chief, had
brushed off his suggestion that a
raid be made on a suspected
gambling place at 1914 L street
NV. with the assurance that the
place was as clear as a whistle and
that the operator of the stand had
told Richitt that the news stand
was "Emmitt Warnings place. ~
Richitt was asked did any reper-
cussions follow your raid?" Cap
tain Richitt replied That's hot
one." The assertions of Captain
Richitt are denied by 1t. Blick
and a disinterested civilian.
Conclusion: The statements
given in the public press by Capt
Richitt could have no other effect
than to destroy public confidence
in the administration of the Po-
lice Department. These accusa-
tions are apparently wholly with
out substance and appear
motivated only by his resentment
of the fact that he had been trans
ferred to No. 8 Precinct. They
reflect an attitude on his part
that he has proprietary interest
in any precinct in which he may
be stationed. The evidence sum-
married. above is sufficient to JUS
tify a charge of failure to obey
officials orders of the department
neglect Of duty, conduct unbe-
coming an officer, and conduct
prejudical to the reputation and
good order of the police force.
CLASSIFICATION III.
The Case of Pvt. Ernest N. Reid.
In the course of testimony be-
fore the subcommittee of the
House on March 4, Pvt. Ernest N
Reid testified that on January 81
he had personally received a call
from Maj. Barrett to have Capt
Richitt communicate with him
This is denied by Mai. Barrett.