ATTACK ON POLICE OFFICIAL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLI, Issue 20442, 12 June 1936, Page 9

ATTACK ON POLICE OFFICIAL

EVIDENCE AT OFFICIAL INQUIRY AMAZING DOINGS DISCLOSED United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (Received June 11, 9.5 p.m.) MELBOURNE, June 10. The Royal Commission, which is inquiring into the shooting of Superintendent John Brophy, Chief of the Victorian Criminal Investigation Department, and the authenticity of police statements connected with it. continued its sitting to-day. Mr Justice Macindoe is the Royal Commissioner and Mr L. Stretton is assisting him. Police Evidence Sir Thomas Blarney, Chief of the Victorian Police, said he saw Brophy at the hospital after the shooting. Brophy told him that he had an accident with nis own revolver in a car in Royal Park, and that two women were with him, also the driver Maher. As a result of later investigations, witness had a conference with Detective McKcrral, when it was agreed to issue a statement to the Press that Brophy went to Royal Park in response to a message and, while there, had been seriously wounded by two bandits. He authorised no other statement. On the following day, Monday, he gave an interview to four representatives of the press telling them all he knew of the shooting up to that stage. “The Melbourne Age” then said he would not continue his investigations into the shooting. That was wrong. “We had important clues and I would not divulge them,” said the witness. The chief secretary later called for a report of the whole circumstances, which I supplied.” Brophy’s Action Criticised Mr Stretton: Do you think it proper that Brophy should take two women and a man with him? Sir Thomas Blarney: I see no impropriety in ’t. It would have been risky to take a taxi because of the driver. It would also have been risky to take a policeman in plain clothes. Brophy would, in normal circumstances, have taken steps to have his assailants arrested, but in this instance he had four bullet wounds. Women in the Car. Asked why he did not supply the names of the women in his report to the Chief Secretary, Sir Thomas said: Scandalmongering 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 newspapermen about the accident did you say you did not know where the report came from and that nobody seemed to know anything about it? Sir Thomas: I said something to that effect. Mr Stretton: If you said it. it would be an obvious untruth? Sir Thomas: Yes, if I said it. Mr Wilbur Ham, K.C. (appearing for “The Melbourne Herald” and its reporters) asked whether Sir Thomas attempted to stifle information regarding the shooting, at the hospital. Sir Thomas answered: We were anxious that no wrong reports should be disseminated. We wanted to ensure accuracy. Mr Ham: Or to ensure inaccuracy. Sir Thomas: 1 replied to the reporters’ questions without intending to be candid. Mr Ham: Then your intention was to mislead. Sir Thomas: No; definitely to parry. Sir Thomas, replying to Mr Ham, said that when the shooting was originally reported to be accidental, he did not ask Brophy how he came to be wounded all over the body. Mr Ham: Did you not think it strange? Sir Thomas: Yes. The inquiry was adjourned.