MELBOURNE SHOOTING DRAMA

Northern Advocate, 12 June 1936, Page 7

MELBOURNE SHOOTING DRAMA

ROYAL COMMISSION’S INQUIRY

[United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Cofyright.l (Received 10 a.m.) " MELBOURNE, June 11.

The Royal Commission which is inquiring into the 1 shooting Of Superintendent J. Brophy, of the Victorian C.1.D., in Royal Park,’ near Parkville, on May 22, sat again today. Mr Justice Macindoe presided. Mr Brophy said there ...had been several hold-ups in Royal Park, but some were not reported in the interests of women, whose reputations Were at stake. The story that witness had accidentally' shot himself, with his own pistol, which was told, at police headquarters, was a stop-gap excuse and a pure fabrication. It was realised that the truth would >: have ,to come out, : but not necessarily for the public. ,v-’ Sir Thomas Blarney, chief of police, said he saw Mr Brophy in hospital after the shooting. Mr Brophy told him he had had an accident with his / own revolver in a car in Royal Park, that two women were, with him and that the driver was Maher. ' Later Investigations.

As the result of later investigations, said Sir Thomas, he had had a conference with Detective McKerral, when it was agreed to issue a statement to the Press that Mr Brophy went to Royal Park in. response to a message, and, while there, was seriously wounded by two bandits. Witness said he authorised no other statement.

On the following Monday,, he gave an interview to four representatives of the Press, and, told them all he knew of the shooting up to that day. The “Age” newspaper then stated that witness would -not continue the investigation into the shooting. That was wrong. “We had important clues,” said Sir Thomas “and I did not divulge them. Tht chief secretary later called for a report of the whole circumstances, which I supplied.” Mr L.. Stretton. who is assisting the, commissioner: “Do you think it proper that Mr Brophy should have taken two women and a man with him.” “No Impropriety.” Witness: “I see no impropriety in it. It would have been risky to .take a taxi because of the driver, and also risky to have taken- a policeman in plain clothes. Mr Brophy, in normal circumstances, would have taken steps to have had his assailants arrested, but in this instance he had four bullet wounds.” ■ - Asked why he had not supplied the names of the two women in the report to the chief secretary. Sir Thomas said: “Scandalmohgery is not ' the business of the police. Their names were omitted to shield them, because these reports go through many hands.” Mr Stretton: “When you were asked by reporters about the ‘accident’ did you say you did not know where the report came from and that nobody seemed to know anything about it.” Witness: “I said something to that effect.” “To Parry Questions.” “If you said that, it would be an obvious untruth.” —“Yes, if I said it.” Mr Wilbur Ham, K.C., counsel for the “Sydney Morning Herald,” asked whether Sir Thomas had attempted to stifle information about the shooting, at the hospital. Witness: “We were anxious that no wrong reports should be disseminated. We wanted to assure accuracy.” “Or to ensure inaccuracy?”—“l replied to the reporters’ questions without intending to be candid.” “Then your intention was to mislead?”—“No, definitely to parry the questions.”