Evening star., 1953-08-31

The Police Trial Board was
moved to some Of its strong
est criticism of Inspector AL
bert /. Bullock when it read
the replies he made to Police
Chief Robert v. Murray when
his superior officer was ques-
tioning him. The matter
under discussion was whether
Inspector Bullock was a resi-
dent of the District during
1946, 1947 and 1948. He was
accused of failing to file an
income tax return in the Dis
trict in those years.
Other testimony at the
hearing was to the effect that
he did live in the District dur
ing these years.
The text of the boards COM
ment and the questions and
answers follow:
If there could still be doubt
that Inspector Bullock was a
resident of and domiciled in
the District of Columbia dur
ing the three years in question
and, as such, was evading the
VNoxyV,oaS,f IF S1onnnn fovnc fn
the District, it was, in the
opinion of the boa1d, resolved
by the refusal of this reSpon-
dent, senior Inspector of the
Metropolitan Police Depart
ment to answer questions of
his immediate superior, Robert
V. Murray, the Chief of Police.
as to whether he was in fact, a
resident during those years, or
where he did live during that
time. or whether he was mar
ried or single during the three
years, or whether he did file
income tax returns with the
District covering the years
1946, 1947 and 1948.
Delaying Tactics.
The chief of police testified
ctr. 424 ct sep that after a
series of delaying tactics on
the part of Mr.. Bullock and his
attorneys lasting from May %,
1852. to April q. 1858, and
which will be more fully de-
scribed herein in connection
with charges Nos. and 3,
Inspector Bullock was finally
brought face to face with his
superior, the chief of police,
on April q, 1853, to answer a
series of questions relative to
his source of income in addi-
tion to his salary as a member
of the Metropolitan Police De-
partment.
At that time he appeared at
the office of the chief of police
with his attorneys, Messrs.
Ford and Sitnick, and handed
his chief a f1ve-page single
space letter signed by his at
torneys CDC Exh. 26) which
he stated was in response to
his order to appear for ques-
tioning. In said letter he set
forth a resume of the various
phases of the legal difficulties
which had surrounded him be-
cause of his unexplained ac-
tions and there was contained
the following paragraph:
I'm view of Title 18, Section
1886, United States code. and
in view of statements of your
self and the said assistant cor
poration counsel, and it being
obvious that your intended in
quiry is to cover subjects gone
into by Inspector Bullock be-
fore the Senate committee, you
are advised that Inspector
Bullock respectfully declines to
submit to your said intended
inquiry"
Questioning Transcribed.
Chief Murray proceeded with
his Interrogation of Inspector
Bullock which was transcribed,
said Interrogation being by or
der of the Commissioners. Mr..
Wise. assistant corporation
counsel, was also present. Fol-
lowing were questions of the
chief of police and the an
Swers by Inspector Bullock re-
lating to his income taxes dur
ing the three years in QueS-
ton (DC Exh %, TT 496 ct
seqD.
Chief Murray - Inspector,
where are you presently liv-
ing?
A. 1902 Longfellow street,
Hyattsville, Maryland.
Ch1ef Murray-HoW long
have you lived at that ad-
dress?
A. Since about September,
1852. I don't know the exact
date: I notified you.
Chief Murray-Where did
you live during the years 1916,
1947 and 1913?
Mr.. Ford-Those years were
'46. AT, and '48?
Chief Murray-Yes.
Mr.. Ford-In an affidavit
filed in the suit against you
and the Commissioners pend
ing in the United States Dis
trict of Columbia Court for the
District of Columbia, Civil
Action No. 1888, there ap-
pears an affidavit which shows
that Inspector Bullock lived
in the District of Columbia.