BROPHY INQUIRY

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 June 1936, Page 7

BROPHY INQUIRY

REPORTERS’ EVIDENCE. [by CABLE —PBESS ASSN. —COPYBIGHT.] MELBOURNE, June 17. At the inquiry by the Royal Commission into the shooting of Superintendent Brophy to-day, the witnesses mainly were reporters on the “Argus,” “Age,” “Herald,” and “Sun Pictorial.” They gave evidence of conflicting stories being told at police headquarters, following on the shooting of Superintendent Brophy. Earl Robinson, of the “Sun Pictorial” and Laurence Whitehead, of the “Herald,” both said that the statement produced at the inquiry was not the one they had seen at the Police Press Bureau. The handwriting and phrasing were different.

Lionel Luxton, of the “Argus,” explained that he and another reporter had interviewed Superintendent Brophy at the hospital. He referred them to Detective McKerral, who had issued a corrected statement regarding Superintendent Brophy’s injuries and the manner in which they were caused. Later in the evening one of the broadcast stations put over the air still another more detailed version. Detective McKerral was called on the telephone, and, when told about it, he insisted that both the Press and the broadcasting statement wrnre the same, but that if the latter were any different, then somebody had coloured it.

Harold Austain, a reporter on the “Age,” said that when Sir Thomas Blarney was asked by reporters whether usual methods were being taken to apprehend Superintendent Brophy’s attackers, Sir T. Blarney replied:—.“No. What can we do? The men were masked, and a torch was flashed in Brophy’s face. There is no way of identifying them.” Mr O’Bryan, who is appearing for the police, interposed: “What did you take that to mean?” Witness: That there was little likelihood of the offenders being apprehended. Judge Mclndoe: Doesn’t it mean that there was no likelihood on earth of their being apprehended, and that investigations had ceased? Witness: Yes. «. The inquiry was adjourned.