New-York tribune., 1899-06-12
EVIDENCE IN THE MOLINEtA CASE
A LETTER FROM W. c. CHURCH. FOREMAN
OF THE MAY GRAND JURY.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir. In "The Sun" OF this morning | nnd
statement with reference 10 the Moiineux case
credited to Assistant Distrct-Attorney osborne, In
which Mr. Osborne IS represented as saying tnat
the May Grand Jury "caed into the Grand Jury
room some OF his (Moneuxs) most Intimate
friends"
think that Mr. Osborne must have been mis-
understood for, with the single exception OF MI
Carvalho no witness was called before the Grand
Jury except he summoned by the District'
Attorney on his own motion 1t seemed TO bs
proper to call Mr. Carvaho, as he was familiar
with the handwriting exhibits in the case and had
been for many years the expert employed py 'he
District ct-Attorney-eighteen years, / believe, ana
down to the time of the Moneux case.
There is an obvious error also In this statemeht
ascribed 10 Mr.. Osborne;
.orho Grand Jury also permitted another friend
OF Molineux's 10 testify about the three-ereseehe
note paper This witness was Charles Wllliara' %
No. . Vandam-st., who testified that the three-
crescent paper commonly used In this eity
Aside from Mr. Carvalho witness was per
mtted' tc testify unless he was called In ths
usual course by the District-Attorney to sustain
the indictment and examined by his assistant
Reference TO the record now before the court WIZ
show how thorough the examination was
In another interview with Mr. Osborne he 10
represented as saying; "As for the experts re-
gard their testimony as indsputable' Ar. os-
himself TO the statement that the testimony OF any
hired expert s to be accepted as 'indisputa6e' IL
II were So then would Dreyfus still be langushins
in his prison on DEVILS Island instead OF again
wearing the uniform OF his rank In the Frencn
Army and the insignia OF the Legion OF Honor.
The testimony OF experts expressions OF opin'
ion to which due weight should be given, but which
are not OF equal authority with statements OF fact
within the knowledge OF a witness They are
guide to jury In making examination for them
selves but they cannot override the conciunohs
following such an examination, which In TINS case
thorough. =.
AS 10 the various reports OF bias on the part q
the May Grand Jury Ii is sufficient for me 10 car
court that you shall present no person from envy
hatred malice nor shall you leave any one un,
presented through fear, favor, affection or reward
or hope thereof. but you shall present all tnlngs
truly as they your knowl ledge, according to
the best OF your understanding. so help you Goa.
No Grand Juror was false 10 that oath. and In an
experience the foreman of four grand inquesu
I have never met In the Grand Jury room a more
conscientious and painstaking body OF men fnaa
those assembled for the May term. IL they needee
any defence II would be found In the full record
OF the testimony presented 10 them. This should oe
extracts made for the purpose OF proving theory;
/ do not propose TO enter upon discussion o.
the Molineux case and have only said this much
to correct what | stated In the beginning APP
pears TO be misunderstanding OF Mr.. Osoornes
remarks Perhaps should have left this eof,sc- e,,
Attorneys Office is so constant that fear that ne
may not find leisure for IL. ,,.,cu
West Point. June II. 1859.