University of Virginia Library

BOCOCK-MARTIN-TALMAN CASE

Mr. Talman, as spokesman for himself and his two friends, said that each in turn would like
to review his own activities from the late evening of Saturday, April 3rd until 10:30 on Sunday
morning, April 4th. He said they did not feel to blame for the unfortunate events that took
place throughout this period, that they wished to present their own case on its own merits only,
that they wished to make some comments to the Board after the case was decided, that they wished
the Board to ignore agitation of parents and lawyers to arouse sympathy for the loss of degrees
and related penalties, and to consider only the facts of guilt or innocence; that they wished the
Board to bear in mind that it was not President Darden and Mr. Fletcher who were on trial, that
the background of University discipline was the work of the Student Council, of which he (Talman)
was retiring Chairman and Mr. Bocock the new Vice-Chairman, and that the handling of discipline
was a new and novel matter in the experience of President Darden and Mr. Fletcher

Mr. Martin, Mr. Bocock, and Mr. Talman then testified in detail, and were questioned at length
regarding the events of April 3rd-4th at the rooms they occupy at Nos. 10, 12, and 14 East Lawn.

In closing the argument, Mr. Martin admitted that it was wrong to keep a girl in a Lawn room
all night, but said that his priest, Mr. Churchill Gibson, had said he was "morally clear".
Mr. Bocock said he was uncertain whether a Student Councillor had greater responsibility for
conduct than the average student. Mr. Talman asserted that a Councillor definitely did not
have greater responsibility. Reading from Cavalier Daily editorials, he said that it would be
wrong for the Board (1) to make an example of the three of them, (2) to tar them with the same
brush (same type of punishment) as the students who had been immoral in the Sunday morning
and Sunday afternoon incidents, (3) to fail to take into account their good records, and (4) to
inflict a punishment which would be unpopular with the student body and therefore would be ineffective
in improving student conduct.

The Board adjourned for lunch at 1.30, reassembling at 2:20 p.m.