POLICE INQUIRY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 18 June 1936, Page 7

POLICE INQUIRY

SHOOTING OF SUPERINTENDENT • : / EVIDENCE AT MELBOURNE (United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) (Received 18th June, 9.10 a.m.) MELBOURNE, 17th June. At the inquiry by the Royal Commission into the shooting of Superintendent Brophy, to-day’s witnesses were mainly reporters on the “Argus,” “Age,” “Herald,” and “Sun Pictorial,” who gave evidence of conflicting stories told at police headquarters following the shooting of 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 interviewed Brophy at the hospital, and he referred them to Detective McKerral, who issued a corrected statement regarding Brophy’s injuries and the manner in which they were caused. Later in the evening one of the broadcasting stations put over the air still another and more detailed version. McKerral was called on the telephone, and when told about it he insisted that both the press and broadcasting statement were the same, but if the latter was different then somebody had coloured it. Harold Austin, reporter on the “Age,” said that when Sir Thomas Blarney was asked by. reporters whether the usual methods were being taken to apprehend Brophy’s attackers, Sir Thomas 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?” Austin: “That there was little likelihood of the offenders being apprehended.” Judge Macindoe: “Doesn’t it mean that there was no likelihood on earth of their being apprehended, and that investigations had ceased?” Austin: “Yes.” • The inquiry was adjourned.