Immediately after the killings, Officers Harrington and Doherty interviewed Mark P. Chace, the overseer of the Express Company's stable. The stables were located directly across Second Street from the Dr. Kelly house (Borden neighbor to the south). They recorded Chace's statement in their witness statement report. As a side-note, Chace had formerly been a member of Fall River law enforcement.
Witness Statement Page 20.
(Harrington & Doherty)
Mark Chase (sic) "Was around the Express Company's stable, opposite the Borden house all forenoon. Was back and forth from the stable to V. Wade's store several times between 10:30 and 11:15. Saw nothing suspicious."
Per this police report, Mark Chace told the police he saw nothing suspicious around the Borden home the day of the murders.
Mr. Chace did not testify at the Preliminary Hearing held late August, 1892. This indicates to me that as of late August, Chace's recollection either had not changed 'yet' or the defense wasn't aware that he might have seen something different than what the police report included.
He did testify to the Grand Jury in November, but impossible to know which version of his recollection he told the Grand Jury. Knowlton did allow some defense witnesses to testify to the Grand Jury, which he was not required to do (niceness point for Knowlton).
However, as we all know, six months after the Grand Jury, Chace testified at the trial that he saw an unfamiliar wagon and man sitting in front of the Borden house in the time window during which Andrew was killed. This trial testimony absolutely does NOT reconcile with his witness statement. A stranger sitting in front of the house at the time the occupant was killed would not qualify as "nothing suspicious" to anyone, much less a former member of the police force.
Now, to make this curious and dramatic change to Chace's recollections even more peculiar, read the following excerpt from Jennings and Chace's trial dialogue.
Mark P Chace Trial Testimony
Trial Pages 1362-1363
Q. (Jennings) Did you ever see such a buggy as that around there before?
A. (Chace) I never did, no, sir.
Q. Did you ever see that man around there before?
A. No, sir, not to notice him.
Q. Did you inform the police of this about the time of the murder?
Mr. Knowlton. Wait a minute.
Mason, C. J. I do not see how it is competent.
Noon recess.
My interpretation of this testimony excerpt is that Jennings is to wanting to get Mark Chace to say that he told the police at the time of the murders. I presume his goal was to emphasize the point that the police did not follow up all the leads and, too early, focused solely on Lizzie. But we'll never know because Knowlton objected to the question and the judge halted that line of questioning.
I've spent considerable time digging into this issue because it could greatly damage the defense by implying that they were possibly involved in witness tampering or it could prove to be yet another major 'ding' against the police force by making a false or flawed police report.
I personally seesaw back and forth on this testimony. The police did make multiple errors (intentional or not), but this is also not the only defense witness who's story altered between initial reports and what they ended up testifying at the trial. Hiram Lubinsky, ice cream peddler, is another example. What strengthens the police report involving Lubinsky is that Hiram was interviewed in the newspaper shortly after the murders and what he said to the reporter matches the police report. His trial testimony on what time he passed the Borden house does not match what he told the police and the newspaper reporter. 11:10 am vs. 10:30 am. That time variance makes all the difference.
Research notes:
