Evening star., 1953-08-31

Iler IrOm pOllCe QeaOquarCerS.
Chief Murray promptly dis
patched a copy by motorcycle
to the Commissioners.
If Bullock had been acquitted,
about $4,000 would have been
due him in back pay for the Is
months he has been suspended.
Mr.. Ford said he plans to
carry the ball to the last point"
for Bullock, Notwithstanding the
fact that his client is virtually
without funds. The suspended
policeman, he said, has been
trying to make a living by selling
secondhand cars in recent
months.
The trial board hearing was a
direct result of the Senate Dis
trict subcommittee investigation
of crime and law enforcement in
Washington in 1852.
Inspector Bullock was one of
several high-ranking policemen
who came in for special atten-
tion of the Nicely subcommittee
and an investigating staff headed
by Arnold Bauman.
$15,333 Involved.
The investigators established
that Inspector Bullock and his
present wife amassed an income
of $15.333 above their salaries in
less than three years. When
asked to account for their aff1u-
ence. Mrs. Bullock refused to
answer. saying that testimony
might tend to incriminate her.
Inspector Bullock told the in
vestigators he didn't remember
how he came into possession of
the extra money, though he had
no income except salary. He
promised to make an explana-
ton later, but never did so.
Police Chief Murray suspended
Inspector Bullock in May, 1852,
for failing to explain. After re-
peated attempts to get the in
formation, Chief Murray placed
charges against the veteran in
spector and the Commissioners
appointed the three member
trial board to hear the case. q.
Authority Questioned.
Defense Counsel Ford con-
tended that Chief Murray lacked
authority to inquire into sub
ordinate'S personal finances.
This contention was a turning
point in the trial board hearing
June 80.
Board Chairman Cogswell ex-
pressed belief that Chief Murray
had the authority. He said a
policeman should be eager to
answer questions from the chief
in order to remove any doubts
about his conduct. He added
that If a policeman, when ques-
toned, did not want to answer,
he could refuse and resign from
the department.
The chairman also said that
under Police Manual regulations,
he thought Chief Murray would
nave left himself open to dis
ciplinary action if, after reading
the Senate crime inquiry testi-
mony, he had failed to question
Inspector Bullock.
Ford Outraged.
Mr.. Ford was outraged. He
said the board should be dis
qualified from hearing the
charges against the inspector.
He said the chairman's state
ment showed the board had a
"pre-disposition Of the guilt" Of
his client.
For that reason, the attorney
decided to abandon an active
defense. He stopped cross-exam-
ing prosecution witnesses and
ne calle0 no witnesses Tor the
policeman. He made no effort
to present documentary evidence
on behalf of his client.
Although reassured by Chair
Inspector Bullock, a police vet
eran of more than 80 years, has
been in trouble frequently in the
latter part of his career.
He was a principal figure in
the police department shake-up
of 1947. when he was transferred
from the command of the 18th
precinct to the 9th. Only a week
before that, police broke up a
$40. .000-a-day gambling estab-
lishment within a block of the
18th precinct station in South
east Washington.
In 1851. he was indicted on
conspiracy charges along with