SHOOTING IN PARK

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19039, 12 June 1936, Page 5

SHOOTING IN PARK

MELBOURNE INQUIRY

POLICE CHIEF QUESTIONED

REPORTS OF INCIDENT

(Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Preps Assn.) MELBOURNE, June 11.

Giving evidence nt. the inquiry into the shooting of Superintendent J. O. Brophy in Royal Park on the night of May 22, Sir Thomas Blarney, chief of the Victorian police, said that he saw Superintendent Brophy at the hospital after the shooting. Superintendent Bropliv ,tolu the witness that he had had an accident with his own revolver in a car in Royal Park and that there were two women with him, also the driver, Maher. As a result of Inter investigations the witness had a conference with Detective McKerral, and it was agreed to issue a statement to the press that Superintendent Brophy went to Royal Park in response to a message, and while there had been seriously wounded by two bandits. lie authorised no other statement.

On the following day, a Monday, the witness gave t an interview to four representatives of the press, telling them nil he krtew of the. shooting up to that stage. The Age newspaper had said he would not continue investigations into the shooting. That was wrong.

“We Tiad Important dues and I would not divulge them,” continued Sir Thomas. “The chief secretary later called for a report of the whole of the circumstances, which I supplied.

SAW NO IMPROPRIETY

Air. L. Stretton: Do you ,think it proper that Superintendent Brophy should take two women and a man with him?

The witness: I see no impropriety in it. It would have been risky to take a taxi because of the driver; also risky to take a policeman in plain clothes. Superintendent Brophy would, in normal circumstances, have taken stops to have the assailants arrested, but in this instance he had four bullet wounds.

Asked why he did not supply the names of the women in his report to the chief secretary, Sir Thomas Blarney said: “Scandal-mongering is not the business of the police. Their names were omitted to shield them, because these reports go through many hands.”

Mr. Stretton: When ,asked by the newspapermen about the accident, did you say you did not know where the report came from, and tnat nobody seemed to know anything about it? The witness: I said something to that effect.

Mr. Stretton: If you said it, it would be an obvious untruth?

The witness: Yes, if I said it. INTENTION TO PARRY

Mr. Wilbur Ham asked whether Sir Thomas Blarney attempted to stifle information regarding the shooting at the hospital, and Sir Thomas answered: “Wo were anxious that no wrong reports should be disseminated. We wanted to ensure accuracy. Mr. Ham: Or to ensure inaccuracy?

The witness: I replied to the reporters’ questions without intending to be candid.

Mr. Ham: Then your intention was to mislead?

The witness: No, definitely to parry. Replying further to Mr. Ham, the witness said that when the shooting was originally reported to be accidental, he did not ask Superintendent Brophy how he came to be wounded ull over the body. Mr. Ham: Didn’t you think it strange?

The witness: Yes. The inquiry was adjourned