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

[Phil H]

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

Phil

[Monty]

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

Monty

[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

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

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

c.d.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.