THE BROPHY SHOOTING.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13287, 19 June 1936, Page 5

THE BROPHY SHOOTING.

VARYING VERSIONS TOLD. United Press Assn.—By Electric T eleg raph—Copyright. MELBOURNE, June 18. At the inquiry by the Royal Commission into the shooting of Police Superintendent Brophy, to-day’s witnesses were mainly reporters on the “Argus,” “Age,” “Herald” and “Sun-Pictorial,” who gave evidence of the conflicting stories told at police headquarters following the shooting of Brophy. Earl Robinson, of the “SunPictorial,” and Laurence Whitehead, of the “Herald,” both said that a 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 fr Argus,” explained that he and another reporter interviewed Brophy at the hospital. He referred them to Detective MoKerral, 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. McKerraTT was called on the telephone, and when told about it he insisted that both the Press and thew 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 tliat to mean ? Austin : That there was little likelihood of tho 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. Robert Lawson, of the “Age,” produced shorthand notes of a statement made by Detective-Inspector McKerra 11 on the morning following the shooting. He was confident the statement by Detective McKerralL produced in Court was not identical with the one issued to the Press after the shooting. Reginald Warren, oi the “SunPictorial,” said he interviewed Brophy at the hospital. Brophy declared it was not true, as stated in the “Herald,” that he was decoyed to Royal Park, and he was not shot there. Brophy added: “1 went to the Royal Park on an official mission. I was standing a'one with a revolver in my left hand, which became sweaty. I made an attempt to change it to my right hand and the weapon exploded twice, and wounded me in the right forearm and cheek.” Witness asked Brojffiy why the pistol went off twice, and Brophy replied that they were finely set. The inquiry was adjourned.