Would It Be The Job of the Police Or the Grand Jury to Discredit Schwartz's Testimony

[c.d.]

People have stated that Schwartz did not testify at the inquest thereby implying that his account had been discredited by the police. But was that the job of the police or was it their job to see that all evidence was presented to the grand jury so that they could determine its value and reach an appropriate conclusion?

Obviously, I am assuming that they would not allow evidence to be presented that they clearly new was false.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I probably didn't state that too well. What I meant is if the police could not disprove his story outright but had serious doubts as to its veracity would they withhold it or present it and let the grand jury determine how much weight they wanted to give it? Hope that makes sense.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

police efficiency

Hello CD. Good question.

"[W]as that the job of the police or was it their job to see that all evidence was presented to the grand jury so that they could determine its value and reach an appropriate conclusion?"

The latter, I should think. They did, however, check out statements.

I take it you have seen why the Leman lads were skeptical of the story?

"Obviously, I am assuming that they would not allow evidence to be presented that they clearly knew was false."

Agreed. Just look at the caution Mrs. Maxwell got at inquest, the rebuff offered to Eliza Gold, and the correction of John Kelly regarding his boots.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello (again) CD. Yes, that makes sense.

The police station take was that more evidence was needed (ie, Schwartz needed to be clearer) before the story could be bought.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Not sure who you are referring to when you say the Leman lads.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

lads

Hello CD. Thanks.

I refer to the police at the Leman Street station. They did not believe Schwartz's story.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

The Police took statements, the Coroner reads the statements and decides who appears at inquest from those statements

Monty

[Phil H]

Is there such a thing as a "grand jury (in the US sense) in British/English law? Was there in 1888?

Phil

[c.d.]

Is there such a thing as a "grand jury (in the US sense) in British/English law? Was there in 1888?

Phil

Hi Phil,

That didn't sound quite right when I wrote it. I meant the people who were part of the inquest. Are they referred to as jurors or what?

c.d.

[Phil H]

Yes, in English law an inquest has a jury - in most cases.

Phil

[Mr Lucky]

Hi C.D.

Basically, if the police can't actually disprove the statement, then when the case went to trial, it and all the other evidence they had would be presented before the Grand Jury, and if they believe that there was a case to answer to, and the evidence is admissible, it would go to trial. All the evidence gathered would then be presented to the Jury in court, and it's ultimately the Juries job to do the believing or disbelieving, when the find the accused not guilty/guilty.

[Cogidubnus]

Does anybody other than myself find it a little odd that the Stride Inquest is adjourned after it's third consecutive day, Wednesday 3rd October until, not the following day, but Friday 5th October? Dr Bagster Phillips evidence is thus split across two sessions separated by a day. The final day seems incredibly distant too (Tuesday 23rd October).

This seems odd, knowing how notoriously difficult it could sometimes be to hold on to juries.

Pure surmise, but is it conceivable that the Coroner wanted time out on the 4th either to consider, or perhaps hear arguments, as to whether Schwartz was called or not?

Just a passing thought - doubt very much if it's an original one either!

All the best

Dave

[Mr Lucky]

It's possible that if Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, and if the killer was neither BS or Pipeman, then the accused defence council, when it came to trial, could cite his evidence for their defence.

Schwarz's evidence is pretty useless as a prosecution witness, as a defence witness for someone other than BS or Pipeman's, his statement could throw a lot of doubt on to the case for the prosecution. So, it may have been wise not to let him give evidence at the inquest for that reason, unless the investigators were absolutely sure that BS (or possible even Pipeman) was the killer.

[Hunter]

Baxter was notorious for holding long protracted inquests. The inquest wasn't completed until the 23rd. The reason for an adjournment for a couple of days was likely to give Phillips some time for a re-examination of the body in light of some questions raised during his initial testimony. Also the inquest into the Mitre Square murder was scheduled for the 4th (Thursday) and it probably wasn't yet known if Phillips would be called to testify there as well, since he was involved with that investigation representing the Metropolitan Police.

Despite the Star report, it is evident from police files that Schwartz was taken seriously by them.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Cris

You may well be right...definitely agree with you regarding Schwartz!

All the best

Dave