Evening star., 1950-06-01

noon for the apparent lack of en-
forcement Of gaming laws in the
Seventh Precinct. At the same
time he warned Warning to stay
out Of the Seventh Precinct, On
examination Of his records Cap
tain Beach states that the report
of gambling raids submitted by
him to Major Barrett was errone-
ouSly dated January SiSt. 1850.
and should have been dated Feb
ruary lst, 1850; and that he re
ceived a phone call from Major
Barrett on the afternoon Of Feb
ruary lst directing him to make a
special report with respect to raids
in the Seventh Precinct. 1t was
after he received this call that he
accosted Warning.
RICHARDSON FORGETS DATE.
The telephone message which
Capt. Richitt said he received in
Murphy's restaurant was received.
he said. while he was having cof-
fee with Pvt. Norman Richardson.
who had been transferred from
No. 3 precinct to No. precinct
on January !, and Corpl. Causey.
Richardson is unable to state
whether this occurred in early
January or late in January. How
ever, Corpl. CauSey states that on
December 81. l949. a special de-
tail was stationed at private
home in the third precinct and
on that detail Maj. Barrett had
given an instruction that Pvt.
Norman L. Richardson was to
communicate with him in the
course ia few days. On the
morning that Richardson was
with Capt. Richitt and Causey,
Richardson told Causey that he
had received a message to COM
municate with Maj. Barrett.
Causey states that Pvt. Richard
son had not, at that time, COM
municated with Maj. Barrett.
Pvt. Richardson states that within
a few days after he received the
message to communicate with
Mai. Barrett he did call him on
the telephone. This would seem
to place the date of the Murphy
restaurant incident early in jan
uary.
| The records of the Chesapeake
& Potomac Telephone Co. disclose
that telephone was installed III
Murphy's restaurant on January
"a. 1850. Mr.. Jack Leonard, who
conducts the Leonard delicatessen,
states that he did receive a request
to call Capt. Richitt to the tele-
phone in his store: and states that
he had been taking messages over
his telephone for the Murphy es-
tablishment. He further states
! that he knew Murphy had had a
telephone installed but he can't
recall the date, and that If there
had been telephone in Murphy s
on the day the telephone message
was received that he would prob
ably have told the caller to COM
municate directly with the restau-
l rant.
CauSey Tells of Possible Error.
Corpl. CauSey also states that
he was instructed on February |
to make a special vice report, and
that his testimony in the House
Committee that the Warning Incl
dent occurred on January 81 he
now believes to be erroneous. On
the day that Warning appeared In
Capt. Richitt's Office, Causey SAYS
he was working on a vice report
and that his records disclosed that
this report was commenced on
February l. 1850. :
Emmitt Warning states that he
had talked with Major Barrett
only on one occasion. This &C.
Cured in early January when he
wassheld UP ana robbed. On that
occasion q telephone call to Ma
Jor Barrette was made by one of
the officers assigned to the in
vestigation of the hold-up; and
that Barrett talked to him with
respect to the hold-up.
CONCLUSION: There is not a
scintilla OF evidence in the record
that Major Barrett at any time
communicated with Emmitt War
ring; or made any disclosure to
Warning Of his concern about
gambling law enforcement in No.
3 and No. 7 Precincts; or made
any disclosure to Warning of the
activities of the House Sub-com-
mittee. The record abundantly
shows that such information that
Emmitt Warning may have re-
ceived was communicated to him
by Captain Beach in connection
with routine law enforcement.
ReSpectflllly submitted