CONFLICTING STORIES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 143, 18 June 1936, Page 7

CONFLICTING STORIES

SHOOTING OF BROPHY EVIDENCE AT INQUIRY Received June .17, 11.5 •p.m. MELBOURNE, June J 7. 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 Suu-Pictorial, who gave evidence of the 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 the statement produced at the inquiry was not the one they had seen at the Police Press Bureau, lhe handwriting and the phrasing were different. Lionel Luxton, of the Argus, explained that he and another reporter interviewed Brophy at the hospital. 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 more (..etailed version. McKerral was called on the telephone and, when told about it, he insisted that both the Press and the broadcasting statements 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 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?” Austin: That there was little likelihood of the offenders being apprehended. Judge Macindoe: Doesn’t it mean there was no likelihood on earth of their being apprehended and that the investigations had ceased? Austin: Yes. The inquiry was adjourned.