Evening star., 1950-06-01
Texts of Reports by Special Corporation Counsel Rct Case

~ A%Se hbb
that this erasure did not appear
on this book January 81. 1850. 1t
Is established by the statement of
Sergt. Horace H. Childress that
the erasure did not appear on the
book on February 5. 1850. at which
time he made his periodic check
of the book. 1t is established by
the statement of 1t. James L.
ROCKFORD that the erasure did not
appear on the book as Of February
%, 1850, or thereabouts. The con-
clusion is that the erasure was
made between February % and the
night of March 3. 1850. In the
course of the interrogation of Pvt.
Reid on March 8. 1850. in the pres
ence of Inspector Clarence Lutz.
Pvt. Reid said he first saw the
erasure on Friday night, March 3.
He stated that he had not told
Committee Counsel Hyman Fisch-
bach of the erasure. He was asked
why he went back to the precinct
on March 3. He stated he re-
turned there to change his clothes.
He was asked II he had an ink
eradicator and he denied he had.
On further Interrogation he stated
that he did have an eradicator. He
said that he looked at the Patrol
Signal System book Friday night,
March 3, and. again on Saturday
morning. He stated that he re-
moved the book and put it in a
locked file cabinet. He states the
reason he did it was that he
thought something might come of
the erasures in the book. He was
asked If he touched an ink eradi-
Gator on Saturday morning. He
said that after he took the book
from the main Office and put it in
an inner Office file cabinet he
picked up the ink eradicator had
moved it back into the outer
Office. He was asked why he
moved the ink eradicator and he
stated he didn't want to be sus-
pected of anything. Pvt. Reid
stated that Pvt. James Salt had
admitted to him that he had made
the erasures. Salt was brought in
to confront Reid and Salt denied
having made any such admission.
Salt further stated that he had
received a note from Reid to see
him on March 4 and that on
Monday morning, March 6, Salt
did see Reid and asked him what
he wanted and Reid told Salt he
wanted Salt to "collaborate" with
him on something; and that it
was all over; and that it was in
connection with the signal book.
Reid stated that on that Monday
morning Salt admitted to him
having made the erasure. This
was again denied by Salt and Reid
stated II must be mistaken" Reid
made no disclosure Of the erasure
to any officer of the department.
CONCLUSION: TIE evidence
above is circumstanti-
ally strong enough to prove that
Private Reid made the erasure
in the Patrol Signal System Book
in violation of the Police Manual.
Under ordinary circumstances
this would appear to be O very
triflfrg offenses but in the light
of the present circumstances the
erasure was patiently made for
the purpose Of lending support to
perjurious testimony; and amounts
to a material alteration of records
that would have strong prohative|
value on issues raised before the
House subcommittee. The evi-
dence above also supports q
charge of conduct unbecoming an
officer in that Private Reid when
confronted with the evidence
against him attempted to shift
the blame for the erasure on a
brother officer.
CLASSIFICATION Nv.
The Case of
Sergt. Arthur b. GernhOfer.
On March 9th Sergt. Gernhofer
reported to Capt. Charles j. Sui
livan that he had received a tele-
phone call from Inspector Lutz
on March 8, 1850, with reference
to the eradication of entries on
the Patrol Signal System Book
for January 81, 1850. In his re-
port Sergt. Gernhofer stated as
follows:
Shortly afterward I recol-
lected an incident which hap
pened four or five weeks pre-
vious to the above date.
The incident referred to oc-
Cured early in the forenoon