SHOOTING IN PARK

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19044, 18 June 1936, Page 5

SHOOTING IN PARK

VARIANCE IN ACCOUNTS

EVIDENCE OF REPORTERS

MELBOURNE, June 17,

The Royal Commission of inquiry into t'h» shooting of Police Superintendent J. 0. Brophy in Royal Park on the night of May 22 was continued to-day. The witnesses to-day 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 Superintendent Brophy. Earl Robinson, of the Sun Pictorial, and Laurence Whitehead, of the Herald, both said 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 Superintendent Brophy at the hospital. He referred them to Detective-Inspector A. T. MeKerral, who issued a corrected statement regarding Superintendent 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 more detailed version. Inspector MeKerral was called on the telephone, and when told about it he insisted that both the press and the broadcasted statement were the same, but, if the latter were different, then somebody had coloured it. Harold Austin, a reporter on the Ago, said that when the Police Commissioner, Sir Thomas Blarney, was asked by the reporters whether the usual methods were being taken to apprehend Superintendent Brophy 's attackers, Sir Thomas replied: "No; what can we do? The men were masked" and a torch was flashed in Superintendent 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?" "That there was little likelihood of the offenders being apprehended," replied the witness. •

Mr. Justice Maclndoe: Doesn't it mean there was no likelihood on earth of their being apprehended and that the investigations had ceased?

The witness: Yes. . . The inquiry was adjourned.