Evening star., 1953-06-30
Trial Board
Awaits Bauman
In Bullock Case
Hearing Recessed
Until Arrival of
Prober Tomorrow

FTOOeF IOmOTTOW
The police trial board hearing
for suspended Inspector Albert
I. Bullock was recessed unex-
pectedly today pending the ap-
pearance of Arnold Bauman,
New York crime prober, as a wit.
ness.
Mr.. Bauman already has testi-
fled once at the hearing. He was
a witness for the prosecution
last week.
After he returned to New York,
Defense Attorney Charles E. Ford
accused Mr.. Bauman of lying and
charged he had tried to trap In
spector Bullock. Mr.. Ford OBJ
tanned a subpoena for Mr.. Bau-
mans temperance as witness
tomorrow morning.
/ ut since the subpoena was
served. Mr.. Ford has decided to
offer no active defense on be-
half Of Inspector Bullock. In a
shouting match yesterday, Mr..
Ford accused the trial board of
having already made up it's mind
on the guilt of his client.
Called Off Defense.
Although the board emphatic
ally denied this accusation, Mr..
Ford said it would be futile to
offer any evidence or examine
any witnesses. He took no fur
ther part in the proceedings ex-
cept to state, over and over, that
the boards predisposition made
it impossible to conduct a de-
fense. He implied that he would
take the Bullock case into the
courts.
When today's hearing session
opened, Board Chairman Robert
F. Cogswell announced that he
had telephoned Mr.. Bauman to
explain the turn of events. He
said it would not be necessary
for Mr.. Bauman to come to
Washington, unless he wished to.
Mr.. Bauman replied, however,
that he had accepted service of
a subpoena issued by Chief
Judge Bolitha j. Laws. It had
not been Cancelled and Mr.. Ford
has not notified him that he is
not wanted as a witness, Mr..
Bauman stated.
Was Crime Probe Counsel.
Board members indicated they
may question Mr.. Bauman, if
Mr.. Ford does not. The witness
was chief counsel to the Senate
District Crime subcommittee last
year when the operations of sew
eral high-ranking Washington
policeman came under scrutiny,
Mr.. Bauman claimed Inspector
Bullock was among those who
received large amounts of money,
over and above salary, for which
there was no accounting. The
current trial board hearing is
one result of the Senate probe.
Inspector Bullock is charged
with conduct unbecoming an Of
f1cer; conduct prejudicial to the
Metropolitan Police Department,
and insubordination. These al
legations are based on claims
that he evaded District income
taxes for three years, failed to
explain his financial affluence to
the Senate crime committee and
refused to explain his financial
situation to Police Chief Robert
v. Murray.
Murray On the Stand.
Chief Murray was on the wit
ness stand when the big ex-
plosion came yesterday. On di-
rect examination, he had de-
tailed the events leading up to
Inspector Bullock's suspension
and his failure to explain where
he got the money above salary.
On cross examination, Mr.,
Ford demanded to know what
authority the police chief had
to ask for such explanation. He
read a portion of a Police Man.
ual regulation, which says that a
subordinate policeman must an
Swer questions about Official
business" Mr.. Ford said per-
sonal finances do not come with
in the scope of official business.
Chairman Cogswell interrupt
ed to express belief that Chief
Murray acted within his pre-
Scribed duties. He said it is in
herent to order and discipline of
the Police Department when
questions such as the Bullock
matter arise, for a subordinate
either to answer, or decline to
answer and resign.
He said any man, particularly
high ranking policeman,
should be more than glad" to
explain situations in which
doubts have been cast. Board
members Donald Clemmer and
Harry F. Hansen agreed general
ly with the chairman's remarks.
Mr.. Ford than challenged the
boards right to sit in the case
and made the remarks about pre-
disposition.