MASARYK UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
Failed Justice. The Sacco -Vanzetti Case.
Diploma Thesis
Brno 2007 Supervisor: Written by: Michael George, M.A. Klára Vopálková
Bibliographical note:
Vopálková, Klára. Failed Justice. The Sacco Vanzetti Case: Diploma Thesis. Brno: Masarykovo University, Faculty of Education, Department of English Language and Literature, 2007. 78 p., 1p. of annexes. Supervisor of Diploma Thesis: Michael George, M.A. Annotation:
The theme of diploma thesis “Failed Justice. The Sacco Vanzetti Case” is suggested in the title. In the very beginning, it introduces the two main characters, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, and then it proceeds to the crime, of which they were convicted and after seven years of imprisonemt sentenced to death. In addition, evidence of both procesution and defense relating to the crime is presented, emphasizing the anarchist background of the two prisoners. Finally, general opinion of the public on the case is shown.
Key words:
Prosecution, defense, court, jury, verdict, guilt, innocence, anarchism, motion, crime, death penalty, evidence, investigation
2
I hereby declare that this diploma thesis is completely my own work and that I used only the sources listed in the bibliography.
Brno, August 7, 2007
Klára Vopálková
3
Acknowledgement:
I would like to thank to Michael George, M.A. for his sophisticated and worthy advice and the autonomy he accorded me in his leadership.
4 The Content: INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1. NICOLA SACCO AND BARTOLOMEO VANZETTI ...... 8 1.1. Italian childhood ...... 8 1.2. Arrival to America ...... 9 1.3. Anarchist activity ...... 12 1.3.1. The Death of Salsedo ...... 14 2. THE CRIMES AND THE PLYMOUTH TRIAL ...... 16 2.1. The Bridgewater holdup attempt and The South Braintree murder ..... 16 2.2. The arrest ...... 18 2.3. The Plymouth trial ...... 21 2.3.1. Prosecution’s evidence ...... 22 2.3.2. Defendant’s evidence ...... 23 2.3.3. The verdict ...... 24 3. THE DEDHAM TRIAL ...... 25 3.1. Evidence relating to Nicola Sacco ...... 26 3.1.1. Eyewitnesses ...... 27 3.1.2. The cap ...... 30 3.1.3. The fatal bullet ...... 32 3.1.4. Sacco´s alibi ...... 34 3.2. Evidence relating to Bartolomeo Vanzetti ...... 35 3.2.1. Eyewitnesses ...... 36 3.2.2. Vanzetti´s revolver ...... 38 3.2.3. Vanzetti´s alibi ...... 39 3.3. Consciousness of guilt relating to both Sacco and Vanzetti ...... 41 3.4. Verdict ...... 44 4. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT UNTIL THE EXECUTION (1920 – 1927) ...... 47 4.1. Motions and other efforts to get a new trial ...... 47 4.2. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts ...... 52 4.3. Sentencing ...... 52 4.4. Opinion of the public ...... 54 4.5. Governor Alvan T. Fuller and The Lowell Committee ...... 56 4.6. Seven years of imprisonment ...... 58 4.7. The execution ...... 59 5. AFTERMATH ...... 61 6. METHODOLOGY SECTION ...... 63 6.1. Various activities based on the Sacco – Vanzetti case ...... 63 6.2. Using the film version of the Sacco Vanzetti Case in the classroom .. 65 CONCLUSION ...... 67 Summary ...... 69 Bibliography ...... 70 ANNEXES ...... 77
5 INTRODUCTION
If it had not been for this thing, I might have lived out my life talking at street corners to scorning men. I might have died, unmarked, unknown, a failure. Now we are not a failure. This is our career and our triumph. Never in our full life can we hope to do such work for tolerance, justice, for man's understanding of man, as now we do by accident. Our words our lives our pains nothing! The taking of our lives lives of a good shoemaker and a poor fish peddler all! That last moment belong to us that agony is our triumph. (Bartolomeo Vanzetti, comment to a reporter before his execution (1927), source: New York World, May 13, 1927) Sacco and Vanzetti… having read Vanzetti´s statement before his execution, it evoques at any rate feelings of empathy and interest in the Sacco Vanzetti case, that became famous throughout the whole world. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were two Italian born radicals, becoming victims of political attention. They came to America, where they were arrested, tried and finally executed in the state of Massachusetts because of being convicted of a participation in a payroll robbery, in which two men had been killed. The whole case covered the period of the years of 1919 – 1927 and was marked by the period of Red Scare, when The United States experienced a wave of bombings by anarchists and faced the power of strong influence of radicalism. As a result, millions of people were slaughtered withnout having a trial. During that period, the case turned from criminal to a political case. Many people believed that Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent and convicted mainly because of their foreign origin and radical beliefs, instead of relevant evidence of criminal guilt. Importnant role was played by Judge Thayer, who did not try to hide his hate for anarchists, and after seven years of imprisonement imposed on Sacco and Vanzetti the death penalty.
6 In my diploma thesis I would like to examine the evidence in the Sacco Vanzetti case and provide an overall view on the case, laying the murder and robbery into political and social background. The first chapter of my work provides a brief look into the childhood of the two men, explaining the reason for departure to America. Moreover, their anarchist activities that led to the arrest will be displayed. The aim of the second chapter is to give a report of the two crimes, more accurately, the Brigewater holdup and the South Braintree murder. Apart from the arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti, the concern of the chapter will be mainly the Plymouth trial related to the Bridgewater holdup attempt. The second, the South Braintree murder, will be further discussed separately in the third chapter. The third chapter, as it has been already suggested, is an overview of the South Braintree murder and the Dedham trial. Evidence presented both by prosecution and defense relating to Sacco and Vanzetti will be discussed. This chapter will be concluded with the verdict of the jury. The next chapter will provide a look into the further development of the Sacco Vanzetti case. Several motions and petitions filed in order to gain a new trial will be examined. However, no efforts were succesful, and so the opinion of the public as well as the feelings of Sacco and Vanzetti will be traced till the very end of the two prisoners. The fifth chapter deals focuses on the impact of the Sacco Vanzetti case on the society. More accurately, some books inspired by this case will be mentioned as well as the proclamation of Sacco and Vanzetti Memorial Day.
7 1. NICOLA SACCO AND BARTOLOMEO VANZETTI
1.1. Italian childhood Investigating the Sacco Vanzetti case, it is inevitable to introduce Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. In 1908 more than 130,000 Italians emigrated to the United States, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti being among them. They did not know each other until they met in 1917 on an anarchist meeting and from then on they became inseparably linked because they belonged to the same political organizations. Though Sacco was from the South and Vanzetti from the North of Italy, both came from peasant families growing up in small towns. Both decided to leave for America, but each having his own reason. Vanzetti wanted to get over his mother´s death, while Sacco was full of ideals of America as a free country. What distinguished them from the other Italian immigrants was that both became anarchist, which proved to be fateful for them (Avrich 9). Nicola Sacco was born on April 22, 1891, in Torremaggiore, a small town remote from urban civilization. He was an alert and intelligent child but in fact he never liked school. He did not receive formal education and was even unable to read and write when he came to America. His father characterized him as a dreamer, though he worked hard. Having not finished the basic school, Sacco went to work with his father in vineyard and after the harvest he returned to the town in order to learn to be a mechanic. Throughout these years he admired and really loved his elder brother Sabino, both shared the idea of America as a country of freedom, opportunity and adventure. Since Michelle Sacco, beloved father, failed to dissuade his sons of giving up their dreams, Nicola and Sabino went to America in order to realize their dreams (Avrich 11 13). Two months later, another young Italian, Bartolomeo Vanzetti, decided to start his journey to America. Vanzetti was born on June 11, 1888, in the town
8 of Villafalletto as a son of a farmer and therefore he was mainly interested in agriculture. Contrary to the Sacco’s, the Vanzetti’s were among the most highly regarded families in the village, hard working and respected by their neighbours (Avrich 13 14). Avrich further points out that a friend of Vanzetti´s father wrote: “There is not at present, nor ever was, a more honourable family in that little town, pious, honest, and just […] the name of this good family has never been tarnished by the slightest blemish” (14). For the first thirteen years of his life, Bartolomeo remained a happy and contended child, having passion for the land like Sacco. Though he was intelligent enough to study at university, according to the father’s wish he learned a trade and start to assist in a café. Despite of being taken out of school, he studied on his own whenever the opportunity afforded. Having changed the work several times, he was still dissatisfied because of being bored by the daily routine. Nevertheless, he became seriously ill and therefore had to come back to Villafalletto. Soon after being recovered, his mother was stricken with cancer and she died in his arms. Vanzetti never truly got over his mother’s death and was never emotionally close to another woman during the rest of his life. It was the hardest experience of his life, even worse than being imprisoned (Joughin and Morgan 457 458). According to Avrich, Vanzetti described his mother in highly emotional terms, for instance, “I hold my mother’s memory as the sacrest thing to me […] my heart is the tabernacle in which my mother and she was brave, lives” (Sacco and Vanzetti 156, quoted in Avrich 19). In addition, to deal with the pain, Vanzetti set out for the United States in 1908. 1.2. Arrival to America
It was in early April 1908 that Sabino and Nicola Sacco arrived to America and settled in Milford in a colony of Italian immigrants which enables them to feel there at home. Both succeeded in finding work quite immediately.
9 Nevertheless, Sabino found out the American life to be too hectic and quite soon returned back to Italy. Left alone in the United States, Sacco did not want to return home, because he would soon have to enter the Italian army. He changed jobs several times, ending up at the Milford Shoe Company as a regular employee where he remained until 1917. Avrich found out that “he worked hard, he was steady and reliable, well liked by both his employers and his workmates […] according to his employer, he was the swiftest edge trimmer of some three thousand who had passed through his factory doors” (Shield p. 12 13, quoted in Avrich 23). Joughin and Morgan added that he was considered to be a first class worked and even trusted with the keys to the building during the night shift (456). As for his character, he was described by his comrades as quiet, self effacing, modest, easy going and friendly person. At the age of twenty one he married Rosina Zambelli, a girl of Italian origin immigrating to United States as a child with her family. Sacco’s years in Milford were among the happiest and fulfilling of his life. In short, Sacco appears as a model of the successful immigrant. Then, it may be asked, why did he become an anarchist? Avrich concluded that the conditions he saw in America turned him towards anarchism, particularly the “injustice and cruel persecution in this free society of today and especially for the poor people” (Sacco and Vanzetti 45, quoted in Avrich 26). He could simply not ignore those groups of people. Firstly, he started to take part in strikes, and consequently, he began to attend weekly meetings of Circolo di Studi Socialy, an anarchist group with twenty five members. Sacco found these men “more sympathetic than other radicals he had met: more militant, more eager to learn, more willing to dedicate their energies to the cause of their fellow workers” (Sacco and Vanzetti 11, quoted in Avrich 27). Soon after joining this group, he began to subscribe to the Cronaca Sovversiva, an anarchist weekly revolutionary propaganda published by Luigi Galeani, helped to arrange meetings and distributed anarchist literature and raised money for Cronaca Sovversiva. Unlike Galeani, Sacco was a man of relatively
10 simply beliefs – “capitalism is evil, government is slavery, was a crime against humanity, freedom is essential for human development” (Schatman 50, quoted in Avrich 27). In other words, anarchism meant to him the world without government, police, judges and he supported equality, justice and loving each other. After the United States entered the WWI, Sacco fled to Mexico in order to avoid being conscript into the United States Army. By then, he had met Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Vanzetti, on the contrary to Sacco, came to the United States alone and settled in New York. He tried a variety of jobs both in New York and outside the city but was never fully satisfied. Then, long period of unemployment followed. In summer, he moved to Plymouth, which remained his home until 1917. As he had previously done in Italy, Vanzetti spent most of his free time reading books concerning history, philosophy or literature. However, his main reading was social and political with particular interest in the works of anarchists. It was in 1912 when Vanzetti found his first anarchist comrades and the same year he also sent the first contribution to Galleani’s Cronaca Sovversiva. Like Sacco, he attended meetings, distributed literature or even took active part in strikes. Avrich noticed that he saw the capitalist system as “the enemy of workers, siding with the poor and against the exploitation and oppression of the man by the man” (Sacco and Vanzetti 81, quoted in Avrich 36). Although he was never married, he was a close friend of several families, serving as a gentle father of their children. One of them, Beltrando Brini, in turn, liked Vanzetti as his father. Vanzetti took an interest in everything Beltrando did and even encouraged him to attend university, always regretting his own lack for formal education. All in all, Vanzetti was a man of lively intellect, acute sensibility, wide curiosity and affable disposition (Avrich 41). He strongly believed in anarchism saying that “all what is to help me without hurt the others is good; all what helps the others without hurting me is also good, all the rest is evil” (Sacco and Vanzetti 274, quoted in Avrich 36). Such was the man, whose greatest
11 passion, supplanting all others, at any rate, was anarchism. Like Sacco, he departed for Mexico since the United States entered the war.
1.3. Anarchist activity
As America started to be involved in the WWI, the anarchist movement entered a critical period. Congress passed a military conscription act, requiring every male between twenty one and thirty, to register for the military service under the penalty of up to one year in prison. Galliani responded to such a conscription act by means of an article “Matricolati” published in Cronaca Sovversiva where he criticized draft registration and alerted his followers to the dangers of such a registration, encouraging them to leave the country. In fact, it had been on a meeting of Galleanists planning to refuge to Mexico, where Sacco and Vanzetti met each other for the first time and from then on became linked together (Avrich 58 59). In less than a year, the two returned to the United States; Sacco restarted his job at the shoe factory, Vanzetti took up fish peddling. Thus they spent the last year of freedom until the police came to arrest them in 1920. Anarchism was Sacco and Vanzetti’s strongest passion, the guide of their lives. Even during their imprisonment, they remained dedicated anarchists continuing their work. Both men were not the innocent dreamers, as it might seem from the previous description. There was no doubt that they belonged to a branch of the anarchist movement, where violence was used without any hesitation, being not afraid of using bombs and assassination. As Kadane and Schum stated, on June 2, 1919, there were explosions in seven cities: Boston, New York, Paterson, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Washington. Apart from this, package bombs, delivered through the mail, were addressed to some of the nation´s most prominent citizens. Fortunately, nobody from the intended victims was injured. Nevertheless, the presence of bombs itself alarmed not only the authorities but also the general public (3).
12 The bombing of Attorney General Palmer´s house on June 2, 1919, was only an example of frequent incidents. It came in the evening; Mr. Palmer had just left the library on the ground floor and turned out the lights and gone up to bed when there was a bang as of something hitting the front door, followed by the crash of the explosion. The limbs of a man blown to pieces were found outside, and close by, according to the newspaper report, lay a copy of Plain Words (Alken 50). “Plain Words” was a radical publication declaring that workers had to defense themselves because they had been murdered (Avrich 149). It was proved that Sacco and Vanzetti were aware of this bomb conspiracy but it stayed unrevealed how much they were involved. However, this fact reveals much about their activities as well as about their strange behaviour on the night of the arrest (Pernicone). It is therefore quite understandable that the American society was afraid of anarchists. “In response to the bombings, the press, public, and prominent men of business and politics flared up in a surge of patriotism, often involving violent hatred of communists, radicals, and foreigners” (Wikipedia). Moreover, at the time, Italian anarchists appear on the government list of dangerous enemies because of two already mentioned things. Firstly, due to their radical activities such as several bombing conspiracy and secondly, owing to the article “Matricolati”. Since the publication, The Department of Justice described it as the most rabid, seditious and anarchist sheet ever published in this country (Avrich 95). Small wonder that their names appeared in the files of the Bureau of Investigation as those of “Radicals to be watched” (FBIfilespage). Such was the social and political background, against which later the robbery and shooting took place.
13 1.3.1. The Death of Salsedo
Having depicted the anarchist backgroud, this subchapter follows this pattern, further explaining under which circumstances Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested. At that time, Roberto Elia and Andrea Salsedo, radical friends of Vanzetti, had been arrested because of being suspected from bomb conspiracy. Galleanists started to be afraid whether they had revealed something or not and therefore plans for further bombing operations were suspended and a large number of anarchists fled the country. In addition, within the days of the arrest of Elia and Salsedo, an anarchist meeting took place in Boston. Detention of their friends dominated the proceedings. It was decided that someone must go to New York in order to find out what was happening. The choice fell upon Vanzetti because he had no family and obligation. Moreover, he had been in direct contact with the prisoners, gathering information about the circumstances of their arrest (Avrich 189). Having returned from New York, on another anarchist meeting, Vanzetti suggested to dispose of their anarchist literature that would be dangerous. 1 In addition, it was agreed that Sacco, Vanzetti and Ricardo Orciani would meet with Mario Buda, who owned a car, in order to gather up and get rid of such material (Jackson 13). In New York, meanwhile, Salsedo admitted his role in the conspiracy of bombing and his conscience started to be stricken because he had betrayed his comrades. As a result, he committed suicide. At 4:20 A.M. , when all was quiet, he had gotten out of bed. Without disturbing Elia, asleep across the room, he made his way to the window, climbed on a chair, and jumped out. William Harding, a police man from the Oak Street station two door away, saw a body flash down and hit the pavement in front of the building […] Dotzert and Agent G.J. Crystal went to room 1406, turned on the light, and saw Salsedo’s bed vacant and the window open. They rushed 1 The immigration law of October 16, 1918, authorized deportation for those who on purpose possess any written or printed matter teaching opposition to all organized government. (Avrich: 1991, 191)
14 outside and found his crushed body on the pavement […] At this point, Elia was awaked and told what had happened. Putting his hands to his head, he exclaimed, “Oh, my, oh, my – it is too bad!” (Avrich 113) The reason of Salsedo’s death remained unanswered; did he do it on purpose or was he pushed by the police? Avrich argued that from Vanzetti’s point of view, Salsedo was not such a type of person that would commit suicide. He believed that he had been murdered by the federal police in New York or, if he committed suicide, it was because he had been made to do it (193). Thus Sacco and Vanzetti, their individual personalities as well as the social and political temper of the times in America all combined to make for the South Braintree crime and murder, of which Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted. However, at the time of the South Braintree murder, the police were investigating a similar crime in the neighbouring town, the Bridgewater holdup attempt that had happened four months earlier.
15 2. THE CRIMES AND THE PLYMOUTH TRIAL 2.1. The Bridgewater holdup attempt and The South Braintree murder In retrospect, the Bridgewater holdup attempt, of which only Vanzetti was convicted, was the genesis of the Sacco Vanzetti case. In both cases a gang was involved, criminals made off in a car and eyewitnesses believed that they were foreigners (Frankfurter, 4). The attempted payroll robbery in Bridgewater took place on December 24, 1919, at about seven thirty in the morning. Two men, one carrying a shotgun and the other a revolver, attacked a truck in which was the payroll of the L.Q. White Shoe Company. The guard on the truck shot back at the bandits. Within a few seconds the episode came to an end; the truck ran into a telegraph pole; the attackers entered a large passenger car which was probably in charge of two confederates, and at once left the scene. No one was struck by shot or bullets. (Ehrmann 5) The same say the Pinkerton Agency was employed by the L.Q. White Company to investigate the holdup attempt. Operative J.J. Hayes interviewed several witnesses and then he came to the conclusion that there were at least four men involved; the chauffeur who remained in the car, the bandit with the shotgun who was later identified as Vanzetti, the man with the automatic pistol and a fourth who did no shooting. Apart from a description of those men, Hayes stated that the holdup car was probably a Hudson or a Buick and that the holdup itself was marked by poor planning. Except for the fact that the criminals had learned that the payroll would be delivered on Wednesday instead of Thursday and knew something about the route of the payroll truck, the job had been insufficiently organized. “The payroll was in a two foot iron box, locked to the floor of the truck and fastened shut with a Yale lock. The bandits would have been unable to make off with the payroll even if its guards had been killed by gunfire or had abandoned the truck.” (Ehrmann 8 10)
16 According to Borovička, no definite results were achieved by the Pinkerton Agency. He argued that there was neither robbery nor nobody was injured The Pinkerton Agency therefore investigated the holdup attempt only because the White Shoe Company hired them. In fact, Hayes found out that the shotgun bandit was between thirty five and forty years old, dark complexioned, between 5´6´´ and 5´10´´ in height and weighed about 150 pounds. His most distinguishing feature was a moustache, whose descriptions slightly differ. He was apparently a foreigner, although what nationality is uncertain, since he was variously described as a Greek, a Russian, a Pole, an Austrian, an Italian or a Portuguese (240 241). Before Mr. Hayes finished his investigation, he interviewed Chief of Police at Bridgewater, Michael E. Stewart. Based on no evidence of any kind, Chief Stewart decided that the hold up was most likely the work of Russian anarchists or foreign born radicals in order to raise funds for revolution. According to a few witnesses, the gunman was described as “dark” and “not” American and therefore Chief Stewart started to look for dark skinned foreign workers with radical opinions who owned a Buick or a Hudson and lived around Cochesett, since the holdup car made for that direction (Jackson, 3). Chief Stewart, as Ehrmann noted, had very little experience with real criminals because he was untrained and inexperienced officer. The title “Chief” for local small town policemen was a misleading appellation. For instance, “Chief” Stewart had no police force and only one part time assistant (11). As the police were still attempting to find the responsible persons for the Bridgewater holdup attempt, another holdup, this time successful, occurred in the town of South Braintree, which was not far away from the town of Bridgewater. At about three o’clock in the afternoon of April 15, 1920, Parmenter, a paymaster, and Berardelli, his guard, were fired upon and killed by two men armed with pistols, as they were carrying two boxes containing the payroll of the shoe factory of Slater and Morrill, amounting to $15,776.51, from the company’s office building to
17 the factory through the main street of South Braintree, Massachusetts. As the murder was being committed, a car containing several other men drew up to the spot. The murderers threw the two boxes into the car, jumped in themselves, and were driven away at high speed across some near by railroad tracks. Two days later this car was found abandoned in woods at a distance from the scene of the crime. (Frankfurter) 2.2. The arrest
As the public was scared of anarchist attacks, the Department of Justice wanted to have the anarchists deported from the country. In addition, the police were fierce and enjoyed a strong public support (Jackson 5). It was not surprising that many anarchists left the country on their own accord. Both Sacco and Vanzetti wanted to go back to Italy. As Avrich stated, Sacco´s decision to do so was hastened when he learnt that his mother had died. He therefore went to the Italian consulate in Boston to inquire about getting a passport. Vanzetti thought it was high time to return home (197). Moreover, there was another anarchist worth mentioning, Ferrucio Coacci. He was supposed to have reported for deportation on April 15 but he did not appear. One day later, he called the immigration office to say that his wife had been ill and so he had had to take care for her. As a result, Chief Stewart was asked by an immigration officer to check up on Coacci. Not only did he find out that Coacci had had quit his job at Slater and Morill, but he also reported that his wife had not been ill and that Coacci had already his bags packed. All of a sudden, he wished to leave immediately and so he was put on a ship on April 18 (Linderpage). The day before Coacci left for Italy, the police found a Buick abandoned in the Manley woods near Bridgewater and traces of another vehicle led away from it. It did not take Chief Stewart a long time to conclude that Coacci was involved in the South Braintree crime because of three reasons: firstly, he had failed to come for his deportation, secondly, had lied about the condition of his wife and lastly, he had been in a great hurry to leave the country.
18 Above all, Stewart believed that both the South Braintree crime and the Bridgewater holdup were the work of the same gang and that these two cars were connected with both crimes (Kadane and Schum 8). Jackson continued that apart from this, in the process of questioning Boda, an Italian anarchist living with Coacci, Chief Stewart learnt that Boda owned a Buick that was being held at Johnson´ s garage for some repairs. He concluded that Boda´s car was the second vehicle in the Manley woods. The police, however, arranged that if anyone came to pick up this car, Simon Johnson should call Chief Stewart immediately (7). As mentioned before, on an anarchist meeting, Sacco, Vanzetti and Orciani were suggested to dispose of the anarchist literature. In addition, they had to meet with Boda who owned a car. Such were the circumstances under which these four men appeared on May 5, 1920 at Johnson’s garage to pick up the Buick. The police called, Boda and Orciani managed to escape, while Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested on the streetcar. Though Orciani was apprehended the following day, he had to be released, since his alibi was strong enough during the days of both crimes. Boda returned to Italy and was never seized (Kadane and Schum 9). Nevertheless, for Sacco and Vanzetti, the call to Chief Stewart was the start of seven years of imprisonment ending in the electric chair. Sacco and Vanzetti being arrested, both were armed. Sacco carried a 32 caliber Colt automatic pistol having in his pockets some extra cartridges, while Vanzetti had with him a Harrington and Richardson revolver, fully loaded 38 caliber, but no extra cartridges. Instead, he had in his pockets unexploded shotgun shells. None of the bullets or shotgun shells was marked by the police for later identification at the trial. Nevertheless, the carrying of weapons as well as acting suspiciously when seeking a car, led Chief Stewart to the conclusion that they were the holdup men. On reaching Brockton police station, he questioned them mostly about their movements, where they had been and whom they had seen. He asked nothing about
19 the South Braintree crime or the earlier Bridgewater holdup (Avrich 202). Instead he focused on their radical activities; Sacco was asked and answered as follows: Q: Are you a citizen? A: No. Q: Are you a Communist? A: No. Q: Anarchist? A: No. Q: Do you believe in this government of ours? A: Yes. Some things I like different. Vanzetti was asked similar questions: Q: Are you an Anarchist? A: Well, I don´t know what you call him. I am a little different. Q: Do you like this government? A: Well, I like things a little different. Q: Do you believe in changing the government by force, if necessary? A: No. Q: Do you subscribe for literature of the anarchistic party? A: Sometimes I read them. (Transcript Vol. III, 3387 – 3389, quoted in Ehrmann 54 55) Not knowing that they were being held on suspicion for the South Braintree crime, both men lied about the purpose of their visit to Bridgewater that night, about their political beliefs, about the guns they carried and denied knowing neither Boda nor Coacci. These falsehoods were later introduced at the trial as “consciousness of guilt”. It is worth noting that they lied because they thought they had been arrested due to their political beliefs and radical activities (Avrich 202). In summary, then, Sacco and Vanzetti were nervously seeking a car to get rid of radical literature when they felt into the police trap. They fitted Chief Stewart’s description for the criminals that were supposed to be foreigners, anarchists who kept a car and living next Bridgewater. Sacco and Vanzetti were seized by police officers on May 5, 1920, twenty days after the murders at South Braintree and more than four months after the Bridgewater assault.
20 It is worth noting that at the time of their arrest, neither of those crimes was mentioned. They thought they were arrested owing to their political beliefs. 2.3. The Plymouth trial Since the evidence linking to South Braintree crime was not strong enough, Vanzetti was tried first for the lesser of the two crimes, the Bridgewater holdup attempt. Sacco´s alibi that he had been at work that day was supported not only by his collaborators but also by the owner of the company (Borovička 270). According to D´Attilio, Vanzetti´s alibi was strong as well, however, the defense did not manage to convince the American jury, as many of the witnesses were Italians with poor knowledge of English and so their trial testimony were mostly given in translation (D´Attiliopage). There were two indictments returned against Vanzetti by the grand jury on June 11, 1920: “assault with intent to rob” and “assault with intent to murder”. The trial opened in the Superior Court at Plymouth on June 22 before Judge Webster Thayer (Joughin and Morgan 9). Judge Thayer, as Perniconi noted, despised foreigners and anarchism meant to him the same as crime. He further continued that the prosecutor, Frederic G. Katzmann, was described as “a cunning and unscrupulous district attorney willing to suborn perjury and manipulate and withhold evidence to obtain a conviction”. Finally, there was John Vahey, standing for defense, who performed so unconvincingly that he was even suspected of collaboration with the prosecution (Perniconipage). In fact the indictment of Vanzetti was based on three kinds of evidence: firstly, he was linked to the car found abandoned in the woods near Bridgewater that was placed at the scene of the crime, secondly, he was “portrayed as having acted in a significantly guilty manner” when arrested and thirdly, he was identified by witnesses as the man who carried a shotgun. The connection with the car was, in fact, very tenuous. The identification
21 testimony was on no account overwhelming. The consciousness of guilt charge was a more serious matter but it does not suggest that it was made the chief argument of the prosecution. Weak as the prosecution seemed to have been, it succeeded in convincing the jury, as it was opposed by an unconvincing defense. As far as Vanzetti´s lawyers are concerned, they wanted to prove that Vanzetti was doing his work, in other words, he was peddling fish. They called sixteen witnesses but as they were Italians, they had to speak through an interpreter to the jury. More detailed description of the evidence will be discussed in the next chapter. Vanzetti did not testify (Joughin and Morgan, 10). 2.3.1. Prosecution’s evidence
The prosecution produced five witnesses who identified Vanzetti as the man with the shotgun. Their testimony, on which the indictment of Vanzetti rested, became the prosecution’s main reliance at the trial itself. Firstly, there was a guard, Benjamin F. Bowles, who was sitting next to the driver of the truck. He recognized Vanzetti largely by his “trimmed moustache, very dark and bushy” and he was positive the man was Vanzetti (Jackson 15). His colleague, Alfred E. Cox, was not quite as sure. According to the transcript 2, he testified: “I feel sure that he is the same man […] I cannot say that I am positive that he is the same man (Transcript, Supp. Vol., 88, quoted in Joughin and Morgan 10). Joughin and Morgan further mentioned the third witness, a passerby, Frank W. Harding, who identified Vanzetti but at the trial his testimony was different from what he had said at the premilitary hearing. Firstly, he stated that the man “was of medium
2 The Sacco Vanzetti Case; Transcript of the Record of the Trial of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti in the Courts of Massachusetts and Subsequent Proceedings, 1920 27. [Edited by Charles C. Burlingham and Bernard Flexner.] Six volumes; I V, and supplementary volume. New York: Holt, 1928 29. These volumes are referred to as Transcript; both volume and page number will be given.
22 height, dark complexioned, a long black overcoat and no hat. Moustache, dark… it seemed to be croppy”. On cross examination he testified that the moustache had not been short and croppy but it had rather been trimmed up (33). Georgina Brooks, as the fourth witness, had been on a walk with her boy when she passed the bandits´car before the holdup. She saw four men in the car but it is at least interesting that she “could not describe the other men […] she was looking at the driver […] he was sitting at the wheel watching me” (Transcript Supp. Vol., 165 and 116, quoted in Ehrmann 86) identified Vanzetti due to his moustache. Finally, Ehrmann proceeded to the testimony of the fifth witness, Maynard Freeman Shaw, a fourteen year old newspaper boy, who saw three bandits but “couldn’t describe anybody except the man with the shotgun”. He added: “I was just getting a fleeting glance at his face, but the way the ran I could tell he was a foreigner” (Transcript Supp. Vol., 134, quoted in Ehrmann 87). As for the other evidence, the prosecution connected Vanzetti with the bandit car, Mike Boda and the fact that a number of people had observed an Italian driving such a car, probably a Buick (Jackson 16). Moreover, at the time of the arrest, Vanzetti had in his pockets both Winchester and Peters 12 gauge shotgun shells. A Winchester shell was picked up at the scene of the holdup, and a Peters shell was found in the abandoned Buick in the woods (Jackson 16). Joughin and Morgan argued that “such shells may be used in any twelve gauge shotgun” (42). 2.3.2. Defendant’s evidence As it was already mentioned, Vanzetti´s defense was based on his alibi. Eleven of the witnesses positively testified that Vanzetti was in Plymouth selling fish on the morning of December 24. As Borovička demonstrated, it was a custom among the Italians to eat eels on Christmas Eve, and Vanzetti claimed that day had been a busy one. Many of the witnesses, then, either
23 bought eels from Vanzetti or saw him delivering them on the morning of December 24. The most important evidence was given a by thirteen year old boy, Beltrando Brini, who recounted the day deliveries (268). Nevertheless, Mr. Katzmann tried to convince the jury that the boy had learnt the testimony by heart. After Beltrando admitted he had told this story twice to Mr.Vahey and several times to his parents, Mr. Katzmann asked: Q: You learned it just like a piece at school? A: Sure. (Transcript Supp. Vol., 193, quoted in Ehrmann 94) Since many of the Italians were not able to understand English, they testified through an interpreter, who was unskillful and at times inaccurate (Joughin and Morgan 42 43). Based on the record, Joughin and Morgan continued that is was “rather long but ordinary trial for assault with intent to rob and murder, with an unusual number of alibi witnesses” (55). 2.3.3. The verdict
The trial of Vanzetti at Plymouth resulted in his conviction for assault with intent to rob and assault with intent to murder. The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of eyewitnesses who identified him as the shotgun bandit at the holdup attempt. There was, however, other evidence used to convict Vanzetti (Ehrmann 85). “A verdict of guilty was brought in on July 1, and on August 16 Vanzetti was sentenced to from twelve to fifteen years” (Joughin and Morgan 9). Jackson noted that he received a sentence much harder than usual, as normally it would be eight to ten years in prison (17). Such a sentence for an attempted robbery in which nobody was injured and nothing was stolen, was, however, at least some indication that the judge might have been prejudiced. The radicalism of Vanzetti did not enter the Plymouth trial. Thus was the end of the first trial and Mr. Katzmann started to prepare for the second, the Dedham trial.
24 3. THE DEDHAM TRIAL Worse was still to come. On September 11, 1920, indictments were turned against both Vanzetti and Sacco, charging them with the South Braintree murders. In fact there were two indictments: one involved the murder of Parmenter, and the other the murder of Berardeli (Kadane and Schum 11). As Linder stated, the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti for the South Braintree murders was finally held in Dedham from 31 May to 14 July 1921. For the first four days the jurors were selected; the 650 potential jurors were reduced to final 12 (Linderpage). Once again, the presiding judge was Webster Thayer and the prosecutors were Frederic G. Katzmann and Harold Williams, the assistant district attorney. Fred H. Moore, who was later replaced by William Thompson, was standing for the defense (Kadane and Schum 13). The jury having been selected, Katzmann attacked Sacco and Vanzetti on these main lines: firstly, he produced eleven eyewitnesses; seven recognized Sacco at the area of killings, while four identified Vanzetti. Nevertheless, only one out of these eleven witnesses testified that he had seen the actual shooting. Secondly, Katzmann centered on the fact that the murder bullets could have been shown from their guns and lastly, he introduced the notion of consciousness of guilt (crimelibrarypage). Evidence relating directly both to Sacco and Vanzetti will be discussed later separately. According to the defense, as Sann noted, both Sacco and Vanzetti had alibi for the day of the murder. Sacco had been in Boston on the Italian Consulate in order to inquire about getting a passport to Italy and Vanzetti was seen in Plymouth selling fish that afternoon (Sannpage). However, the decision to hire Moore as the chief counsel, turned out to be a disaster for Sacco and Vanzetti at the trial. Moore seemed to be more interested in dramatizing the evidence of class struggle than in freeing his clients. In other words, he gave more effort to attract attention to the trial than to making legal points.
25 As a result, the trial took from criminal into a political case (Newman 118). “If Moore had devoted as much attention to the evidence in this case as the devoted to its publicity, the outcome might well have been different” (Kadane and Schum 13). At that time the atmosphere was full of rumors, suspicion and fears. It has been already well know that the defendants were anarchists and it was believed that the bombings reported in the press were the work of anarchists. The Dedham jury, then, may have been influenced by this atmosphere and may not have based their verdict on the evidence (Ehrmann 94). For instance, judge Webster Thayer said of Vanzetti: “This man, although he may not have actually committed the crime attributed to him, is nevertheless morally culpable, because he is the enemy of our existing institutions” (Libcom.org page). In the words of Borovička Sacco and Vanzetti were put into trial because they were radicals, anarchists and immigrants. He further continued that the prosecution was not complete. Not only the police were not trying to find out where the stolen money was, but also there was even no word about the other men sitting in the car. Though the witnesses claimed there were five people involved, in front of the jury stood only Sacco and Vanzetti (272).
3.1. Evidence relating to Nicola Sacco
Seven prosecution witnesses placed Sacco at the crime scene, Katzmann used ballistics experts to try to prove that the bullet that killed Berardelli was fired form Sacco´s gun. He also presented evidence that Sacco was absent form work on the day of the murders, wore a cap that resembled one found near Berardelli´s body, and told a series of lies at the time of his arrest that suggested consciousness of guilt (Linderpage). Both prosecution and defense evidence will be discussed in details.
26 3.1.1. Eyewitnesses
Katzmann produced seven eyewitnesses (Andrews, Tracy, Heron, Pelser, Splaine, Devlin and Goodridge) that placed Sacco in or near the place of the crime Braintree and a few other witnesses testifying that Sacco resembled one of the bandits, but denied to make a positive identification. First, Lola R. Andrews, who was on the way to the shoe factory in South Braintree, when she saw two men near a car parked not far from the Slater and Morrill factory. On the way back the darker of the two men had his head and shoulders under the car. She asked him the way to another factory, as he was getting out from under the car, and the man told her. It is interesting that she described him as dark complexioned but did not notice any difficulty in either speaking or understanding English, which would have marked Sacco. However, Andrews identified Sacco as the man lying behind the car (Ehrmann 199). Nevertheless, her story was controverted by her companion, Julia Campbell, who claimed to have been the whole day with her and the said that the only person to whom Mrs.Andrews spoke was “a man dressed in khaki who was not under the automobile.” Moreover, another witness, Henry Kurlansky swore that Mrs. Andrews told him that “the government was attempting to get her to identify the men but that she had not seen them and could not recognize them.” (Joughin and Morgan 60 61) Borovička concluded that despite Mrs. Andrews was able to identify Sacco, her testimony was not reliable. There lied a question: why would she asked for the way right the man lying behind the car repairing it, if there had been the other man sitting behind the wheel doing nothing? (274). William S. Tracy, a real estate man, recalled that he saw two men leaning against a shop window near the place of the crime. He could not remember their dress, except they wore hats. He further noticed that one was little darker than the other and that they were probably waiting for a streetcar. In court,
27 he identified Sacco as one of those men, though he was not positively sure but “to the best of his opinion”, Sacco was the man (Jackson 20). The third witness, who saw the bandits before shooting, was William J. Heron. As Borovička demonstrated, his testimony revealed nothing. In fact Mr. Heron only saw two men in the South Braintree station almost three hours before the murder. When asked the question about the identity of the men, he answered that he is pretty sure Sacco was one of them. He added that the men were speaking Italian. In addition, the question of prosecution, whether he can speak Italian or is able to recognize Italian from French, followed. Mr. Heron’s response was negative (273). One of the following five witnesses who saw the actual shooting was J.F.Bostock. He heard the pistol shots and saw the encounter between the robbers and the victims. He described the bandits in the following way: … dressed in a sort of black clothes with dark caps, they were fellows of medium build, they appeared to be foreigners, Italians. He thought, as he passed them, that they were Italian fruit peddlers. They had dark complexions, smooth faces, one was swarthy. As the bandit car came up the street one of the occupants was leaning out and shooting. He does not know whether either of the defendants was one of these men. (Joughin and Morgan 62) Another witness, L.L.Wade, who saw the tragedy, provided such a description of the man that shot at Berardeli: “short, black haired, bareheaded, wore a grey shirt, needed a shave, he was kind of bold on the left side.” At the police station, before the arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti when asked whether he could identify any of the bandits, he replayed: “I probably could, but I would not want to convict an innocent man.” At the preliminary hearing he said that he “looks like the man”, while at the trial, he testified: “Well, I ain´t so sure now. I have a little doubt” (Transcript Supp. Vol., 442, 216 and 207, quoted in Ehrmann 192). J.E. Mc Glone saw the encounter, since it took place directly in front of him. He claimed that the criminals were foreigners, Italians, of dark complexion, wearing dark suits and hats or caps. However, he was not able to
28 identify neither Sacco nor Vanzetti as one of the bandits. So was it in the case of E.C Langlois, who saw the shooting from a window, but would not able to identify any of the bandits if he saw them again. He at least described the bandits as “short and dark, five feet eight inches or nine inches tall, weighing one hundred forty to one hundred forty five pounds. They had curly or wavy hair, which was blown backward. They were stout and full chested.” (Joughin and Morgan 63) The last witness of the murder, Louis Pelser, the shoeworker, claimed that he had looked out of the window and saw a bandit shooting Berardelli. Though he even identified Sacco as the shotgun man saying “he is the dead image of him”(Transcript Vol. I., 285, quoted on Frankfurterpage). On cross examination he admitted that in fact he could not have been able to make any identification, since it was all over when he opened the window. Three of his fellow workmen confirmed that at the time of shooting he was hidden under the bench (Frankfurterpage). The remaining six witnesses did not see the killing, they only heard the shooting. As Joughin and Morgan stated, Hans Behrsin and M.E. Carrigan saw the bandit car but both were unable to identify any of its occupants. While driving Behrsin saw two men sitting upon the fence who he described as light complexioned wearing caps on. According to Carrigan, the man on the front seat with a weapon “looked like a foreigner, had black hair […] he looked like Italian, wore no hat.” L. De Beradinis heard the shooting. He was at the door of his shop, as the bandit car was passing by. He noticed a man on the front seat and said his face was “awful white”. When asked at the trial, he admitted looked like Sacco but on cross examination he said he was sure that the man was “a light thin haired”, and Sacco was dark (64). Mary E. Splaine and Frances J. Devlin claimed to having heard the shooting and then looked out of the window. Mary Splaine provided quite a detailed description of the man leaning out of the window (Linderpage) and in court positively identified Sacco. It is worth mentioning that
29 at the preliminary hearing she said “I don´t think my opportunity afforded me the right to say he is the man” (Transcript Vol I., 251, quoted in Jackson 21). So was the case of Devlin. When asked at preliminary hearing if Sacco was the man, she answered “I don´t say positively”, while at the trial her doubts completely disappeared. As for her explanation for the preliminary hearing she stated “I didn´t want to commit myself” (Transcript Vol I., 466 467, quoted in Joughin and Morgan 65). Carlos E. Goodridge, as Frankurter noted, was in a poolroom in South Braintree. Having heard the shooting, he run out and saw the bandit car. Seven months later, at the trial, he identified Sacco as one of the bandits in the car. However, later it was discovered that Goodridge had a long criminal history. Having even had a charge of larceny at the time when Sacco and Vanzetti were tried, for which he pleaded guilty, despite his lengthy criminal record, he was put on probation (Frankfurterpage). Borovička argued that there were three other witnesses who claimed that after the encounter Goodridge admitted that he is unable to identify any of the bandits and he only mentioned a light haired man sitting behind the wheel (274). 3.1.2. The cap Apart from the eyewitness, a cap which was lying near Berardelli´s body was introduced as another piece of evidence. As there was no other real evidence pointing to Sacco except the shell that will be discussed later, Katzmann made all his efforts to show that this cap belonged to Sacco. The cap was picked up several hours after the killings by Fred Loring, one of the factory workers, in the middle of the street. It is understandable that hundreds of people were on the spot and so quite naturally the defense argued that the cap had probably been lost by any of the pedestrians. However, Loring gave it to Jeremiah F. Gallivan, the Chief of the Braintree police where it remained for several days. At the trial, then, Katzmann tried to get
30 the needed link to Sacco through George T. Kelly, Sacco´s employer, who had many times seen Sacco hanging a cap on a nail at work. Nevertheless, he was not very successful and so Judge Thayer intervened and pressed following questions: Q: Mr. Kelly, according to your best judgment, is the cap I show you alike in appearance to the cap worn by Sacco? A: In color only. THE COURT: That is not responsive to the question. I wish you would answer it, if you can . THE WITNESS: I can´t answer it when I don´t know right down in my heart that that is the cap. THE COURT: I don´t want you to. I want you should answer according to what is in your heart. THE WITNESS: General appearance, that is all I can say. I never saw that cap so close in my life as I do now. THE COURT: In its general appearance, is it the same? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. MOORE: I object to the last question and answer. THE COURT: You may put the question so it comes from counsel rather than from the Court. Q: In its general appearance, is it the same? A: Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: I now offer the cap, if your Honor please. THE COURT: Admitted. MR. MOORE: Save an exception. (Transcript Vol. I., 857, quoted on Linderpage)
Finally, Sacco was asked to put this cap on his head. Ehrmann noted that it was not astonishing that he had difficulty in trying to pull “a 6 7/8 size cap with ear flaps over a 7 1/8 size head”. Even the newspaper cartoonists found it ridiculous and depicted the cap sitting on Sacco´s head looking like a “perched sparrow” (217). It should be noted that there was a hole in the lining of the cap. Katzmann, therefore, speculated whether this hole could have been made by a nail in Sacco´s workplace, since Sacco used to hang his cap. However, later it was discovered that the hole was made by Braintree´s chief of police when seeking for any marks of identification (Linderpage).
31 As Borovička noted, it was incredible how the prosecution managed to take the cap found by chance thirty hours after the encounter as a piece of the real evidence without objection. Moreover, there was another cap presented in court that the police found in Sacco´s house. The two caps having been compared, it was proved that the cap found in Sacco´s house was much larger (279).
3.1.3. The fatal bullet
Another mystery in the Sacco Vanzetti case was the fatal bullet that was introduced as the last but the most important piece of real evidence. It was undisputed that there were found six bullets; four in the body of Berardelli and two in the body of Parmenter. The prosecution claimed that Sacco had fired one of the bullets that was later marked as “mortal bullet No. III”. Their conclusion was based on the fact that the bullet was without any doubts fired from a Colt automatic and Sacco was arrested carrying a Colt automatic (Linderpage). As Ehrmann emphasized, in the field of crime detection, “marks left on bullets and shells discharged by firearms rank almost as high as fingerprints in the order of convincing proofs” (251). In other words, if any bullets were connected with weapons carried by either Sacco or Vanzetti, this would constitute important proof of guilt. Therefore, ballistics opinions by experts were required. Accordingly, the Commonwealth asked William H. Proctor, “captain of the Department of Public Safety in charge of the State Police”, for expert evidence about whether Sacco´s automatic had been used. It was well known that Captain Proctor was considered as leading ballistics authority, having long experience with serious crime, “including participation as an expert witness in over one hundred cases” ( Transcript Vol. I., 886, quoted in Ehrmann 252). Captain Proctor had examined the South Braintree bullets and made extensive tests upon them over a period of one year. He concluded
32 that five of the bullets from the bodies of the murder victims can be eliminated, as they “showed marks of a right twist” ( Transcript Vol I., 892 893, quoted in Ehrmann 253), while Sacco´s Colt automatic barrel was the left. Only one bullet, then, showed marks of a left twist and could have been fired from Sacco´s pistol. Unfortunately, this bullet marked as No. III was fatal to Berardelli, since it caused his death. Borovička emphasized that it has never been proved that the bullet was fired from Sacco´s pistol (280). Ehrmann further continued that Captain Proctor advised the prosecution that if they asked him “whether in his opinion the No. III bullet was fired from Sacco´s Colt he would be obliged to answer in the negative” Transcript Vol IV., 3642, quoted in Ehrmann 253). The prosecution was not entirely satisfied with Captain Proctor´s advice. As a result, they brought in the second expert, Captain Charles J. Van Amburgh who was requested specifically to consider the bullet No. III. He “was inclined” to believe that the bullet was fired from Sacco´s pistol but in fact he admitted that he found nothing on which to base his opinion (Jackson 23). Even the test shootings were held at Lowell. Captain Proctor as well as Captain Van Amburgh came to the same conclusion as mentioned above and two defense experts testified that the bullet No. III had not been fired from Sacco´s gun (Ehrmann 265). Being aware that Captain Proctor would rather be a defense witness, the prosecution felt obliged to produce him, as they were sent the result from the test shootings. Katzmann knew that he could not ask him directly and therefore he prearranged the question in the following way: Q: Captain Proctor, have you an opinion as to whether bullets Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 were fired from the same weapon? A: I have not. Q: Have you an opinion as to whether bullet 3 was fired from the Colt automatic which is in evidence? A: I have. Q: And what is your opinion? A: My opinion is that it is consistent with being fired by that pistol . (Transcript Vol. I, 896, quoted on Linderpage)
33 As Frankfurter argued, “consistent” was intended as that bullet III might have been fired in Sacco´s gun. This statement is clearly explained in the affidavit of Captain Proctor that was used as a basis for the fifth supplementary motion. The affidavit itself will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. However, Linder pointed out that several years after the execution, when more sophisticated testing techniques were at disposal, the tests at the Massachusetts Police Lab indicated that bullet III was fired from Sacco´s pistol (Linderpage). It is difficult to conclude where the truth lied.
3.1.4. Sacco´s alibi
On April 15, the day of the South Braintree murder, Sacco took a day off to go to Boston to get a passport, since he wished to return with his family to Italy. Several witnesses confirmed his alibi for that particular day. If searching for Sacco´s alibi, it is necessary to go back to March, when he got a letter from his brother Sabino announcing that their mother had died. Sacco´s employer, George Kelly, testified that Sacco was so disturbed that he was not able to work that day and later he asked him for a day off (Ehrmann ) Borovička provided Sacco´s alibi April 15 in the following way. At nine o´clock Sacco went for Boston. When arrived, he bought newspapers and then met a comrade he talked to. Around midday, then, he met another friend, who was going to have lunch in the restaurant, and so Sacco decided to join him. In the afternoon, around two o’clock, Sacco went to the Italian consulate in order to ask for the passport. However, the employee, Guiseppe Androwere, told him that the photograph he brought is unacceptable for the passport because of being too big and so after ten or fifteen minutes Sacco returned to the restaurant, Guadenagi was still there. At four o’clock he left for Stoughon where he spent the time doing shopping and called at the photoshop to have a passport photo taken. He arrived home around six o’clock in the evening (281).
34 Ehrmann provided the transcript of Adrowere´s testimony after he was shown a copy of the photograph Sacco brought at the Italian Consulate: I first saw the photograph marked “B” on April 15, 1920, in the office of the Royal Italian Consulate at Boston, Massachusetts…at about two or quarter past two…I told him that this photograph was too large for use on a foglio di via or an Italian passport… April 15, 1920, was a very quiet day in the Royal Italian Consulate and since a large photograph had never been presented for use on a passport I took it and showed it to the Secretary of the Consulate. We laughed and talked over the incident. I remember observing the date in the office of the Secretary on a large pad calendar while we were discussing the photograph. The hour was around two or a quarter after two as I remember about a half an hour later I locked the door of the office for the day…This day made a special impression upon me as there was much less business than on the previous and following days… (Transcript Vol. II., 2266, quoted in Ehrmann 364) Moreover, another witness appeared by chance right at he trial when Sacco recognized a spectacle James Hayes – as a man who had returned to Stoughton on the same train and in the same car. Hayes did not remember Sacco, however, he confirmed he had been on that train sitting in the place as Sacco described (Jackson 27). Borovička found such an alibi to be strong enough for an objective judge and unbiased jury. Nevertheless, the prosecution concentrated on two facts: first, Sacco said he had been working on April 15, which was a misstatement and second, Katzmann claimed that the holdup had been well planed in advance and so Sacco took the day off to commit murder and robbery (282). 3.2. Evidence relating to Bartolomeo Vanzetti To connect Vanzetti with the murder the prosecution brought out the evidence of eyewitnesses, possession of revolver and the conduct indicating consciousness of guilt.
35 3.2.1. Eyewitnesses First and the only witness that had the opportunity to see the bandits face to face was Michael Levangie, as he worked as gate tender at South Braintree and the murders ordered him to raise the gate. However, his testimony demanded a critical attention. Just after the shooting, Levangie said to a newspaper reporter that he saw nobody and that he was too damn scared to see anyone. The only thing he remembered was that behind the wheel there was sitting a light complected man (Borovička 275). Ehrmann added that after the shooting Levangie told to another three men, all of them reported that Levangie said it would be hard to identify the bandits. It seemed quite irrational that those four men were lying (176). Borovička continued that three days later when Levangie was interviewed by the Pinkerton operative, he described the driver as black haired, dark complected, clean shaven and he noticed his long hooked nose. There was no single word about dark brown mustache as an outstanding feature of Vanzetti. Further, when Levangie saw Vanzetti at the Brockton police station, he identified him without any doubts as the driver of the car. So did he at the Deham trial. It is understandable that Levangie´s testimony resulted in confusion. The prosecution knew that the driver of the automobile was blond and therefore Levangie´s testimony that the car was driven by dark moustachioned Vanzetti would be overwhelmingly controverted (275). Katzmann had to admit this fact moving Vanzetti to a place behind the driver, since the place beside had already been occupied. He tried at least to point out at Vanzetti´s presence in the car. They find fault, gentlemen, with Levangie, they say that Levangie is wrong in saying that Vanzetti was driving that car. I agree with them, gentlemen…You must be overwhelmed with the testimony that when the car started it was driven by a light haired man… but he saw the face of Vanzetti in that car…and can´t you reconcile it with the possibility, no the likelihood or more than that, the probability that at that time Vanzetti was directly behind the driver in the quick glance this man Levangie had of the car going over when they were going up over the crossing. (Transcript Vol. II, 2215, quoted in Ehrrmann 183)
36 Austin Reed, had also been putting gates down when the bandit car stopped. At that time he was on duty at Matfield crossing, which is about twenty miles from South Braintree. When the car stopped, the engine was still running and a train was approaching, yet Reed claimed to have seen Vanzetti sitting beside the driver and shouting “what to hell are you holding up us for” (Transcript Vol. I., 616, quoted in Ehrmann 187). . Not only was it at least strange that Reed was able to clearly understand what the man in the car was saying despite the roar of the engine and train, but when examined he also stated that Vanzetti´s quality of English was clear and unmistakable. Vanzetti English was quite bad with an accent of a foreigner (Borovička 276). Third, as tending to show that Vanzetti was at the place of the murder, the prosecution introduced J.W. Faulkner who had taken a train from Plymouth that stopped at Braintree. He remembered “a nervous foreigner with a black moustache and cheek bones” leaving at East Braintree. Having seen Vanzetti´s photo in the newspapers, he went to the police station and identified Vanzetti as the man on the train (Jackson 19). Joughin and Morgan argued that according to the record, there were no tickets sold from nearby stations to East Braintree the day of the holdup and that no cash fares were collected from passengers to East Braintree (72). Harry Dolbeare, the third witness, testified that on the morning he saw eight automobiles, but noticed only one and in that one was Vanzetti. In the afternoon, then, he claimed to have seen the same car. When asked why did he notice only that car and did not notice any other men, he replied that he “considered that car and that man endangered his life.” There was no other direct evidence that he connected the sight with the murder (FBIfilespage).
37 3.2.2. Vanzetti´s revolver
At the time of the arrest, Vanzetti possessed a 38 calibre Harrington and Richardson revolver that was found in his pocket. As Berardelli used to have a similar revolver and it had not been found by his death body, the prosecution introduced a theory that Vanzetti´s revolver was actually Berardelli´s weapon and it had been stolen from him by his murderer. J.F.Bostock testified that he had seen Berardelli carry a revolver in his pocket five days before the murder and thus the prosecution concluded that Berardelli´s revolver was found in Vanzetti´s pocket. To support it, Katzmann had only one witness who claimed to have seen the murder from the window and in that instant he saw a man pushing a box into an automobile holding one gun in his left hand, “revolver type I should say.” On cross examination the stated that the weapon “looked like a white gun,” “more of the color of this”, indicating Vanzetti´s nickel plated revolver (Transcript Vol. II., 1152 and 1163, quoted in Ehrmann 224). It was true that Berardelli carried a revolver at work and that it had not been found on him when murdered. After Mrs. Berardelli was shown Vanzetti´s revolver, she stated that her husband had a similar one. Nevertheless, she admitted that three weeks before he got shot he gave it to a place to have it repaired. She did not know whether Berardelli got the revolver back or not. Borovička argued that she must have been lying, since another witness, her neighbour Aldeah Florence, repeated at the trial the words Mrs. Berardelli said a few days after her husband´s funeral: “Oh, dear,” she says, “if he had taken my advice and taken the revolver out of the shop, he would not be, may be he would not be in the same condition he is today” (Transcript Vol. II., 1687, quoted in Ehrmann 230). Despite the fact that the prosecution failed to prove that Vanzetti´s revolver was the Berardelli´s gun, they tried to emphasize that Vanzetti lied at the time of his arrest saying that he had bought the gun several years before. At the trial Vanzetti testified that he bought the gun from
38 a friend shortly before his arrest, as he received cash from his business and was aware of recent holdups. Nevertheless, Vanzetti never explained why he felt necessary to lie about the gun when he was arrested. Finally, according to some reports released in 1977, it was proved that Berardelli´s revolver was 32 caliber, not 38 like the one found in Vanzetti´s possession (Linderpage). 3.2.3. Vanzetti´s alibi
As Vanzetti had no regular employment and his life had no calendar, it might have been difficult to prove what he had been doing on particular dates. Nevertheless, he was able to reconstruct some of his movements on April 15, 1920. Vanzetti stated that on that day he remained in Plymouth peddling fish. He was able to recall two stories. The first incident concerned his purchase of a piece of cloth from a peddler Joseph Rosen and the other, a social chat with a fisherman Melvin Corl. Joseph Rosen was the cloth peddler who Vanzetti met around noon. Rosen offered him a cloth supposed to be a bargain as there was a hole in it. Vanzetti was not sure whether to buy it or not and so he asked for an advice his friend Mrs. Brini who was working in a textile factory. Because of being ill, Mrs. Brini was at home and so Rosen and Vanzetti came to the flat to show her the cloth. Vanzetti, then, decided to buy it (Borovička 280). Mrs. Brini affirmed what Vanzetti said; she only placed the time of the visit a little bit earlier than stated by Vanzetti. She remembered the date since it was “my first week that I came home from the hospital” (Transcript Vol. II., 1523, quoted in Ehrmann 339). Similar to Plymouth trial, Katzmann argued that Vanzetti was in a close relationship with the Brini family and that their son had also testified at Plymouth trial where Vanzetti was found guilty. As Ehrmann noted, Kaztmann characterized Mrs. Brini as “a stock, convenient and ready witness as well as friend of the defendant Vanzetti” (Transcript Vol. II., 2193,
39 quoted in Ehrmann 341). However, Mrs. Brini was not alone in the house since her daughter LeFavre Brini was as well present at the cloth episode and confirmed her mother’s story. As to justify how she remembered the date she stated “it was just one week after I left my work to take care of my mother who came home from the hospital, and because that morning my father called the nurse for my mother and because the day before the 15 th my mother was sick and called the doctor” (Ehrmann 342). Here, Katzmann tried to convict Miss Brini, who was only fifteen years old, that she had learnt the testimony by heart. The other incident that Vanzetti recalled was his talk on the beach at about two o´clock with Melvin Corl, a fisherman painting the boat. They were talking together for about one hour and half. Corl remembered the day because the boat was put on water on April 17, the day of his wife birthday (Borovička 281).There were, however, other witnesses that supported Vanzetti´s alibi, but some of them had difficulty in recalling the details of the day and so the prosecution used their uncertainty to point out that they might be confused about the date they saw Vanzetti (Jackson 27). Lastly, the prosecution introduced Angelo Guidobone who was the only one of Vanzetti´s customers buying a fish on the morning of April 15. Guidobone testified that he “had bought some codfish form him in Suosso´s Lane at about quarter past twelve as he was going to dinner”. As a reason for fixing the date he stated that he had an appendicitis operation on April 19 and that he had a pain two days before. This was a little bit strange association, which enabled Katzmann to do his best to make it seem ridiculous (Transcript Vol. II., 1587, quoted in Ehrmann 336). Ehrmann further continued that Katzmann never asked Vanzetti directly where he was on the day of the murder, but he only approached the day in order to confuse Vanzetti. In fact he asked Vanzetti whether he remembered what he had said at the time of his arrest at Brockton police station. Using such a tactic, Katzmann wanted to prove that Vanzetti was not able to recollect what he had said four months ago. Additionally, how could
40 Vanzetti know what exactly was he doing on April 15? See the following record of the trial transcript: Q: Well, do you remember the holiday we had in April, the 19 th of April, they call it Patriots´Day, the middle of April? A: Yes. I heard that before, but I did not remember that was in April. Q: Do you remember saying that to me at Brockton? A: What holiday? Q: The 19 th of April? A: What holiday it is? Q: Patriots´ Day? A: Patriot? … Q: Do you remember the next question: “Q: This year it came on a Monday.” You remember the answer: “A: I don´t remember.” Did you make that replay? A: I don´t remember. … Q: You did not remember where you were on the 15 th of April, did you? A: More probable, yes. Q: But after waiting months and months and months you then remembered, did you? A: Not months and months and months, but three or four weeks after I see that I have to be careful and to remember well if I want to save my life. Q: That four weeks after the date you could not remember, but seven or eight weeks after you could. Is that right? A: I say that after three or four weeks after my arrest I understand enoufh to see that I have to be very careful to save my life and my libery and I have to remember. (Transcript Vol. II., 1802 1803, quoted in Ehrmann 331) 3.3. Consciousness of guilt relating to both Sacco and Vanzetti
This kind of evidence is known in law as circumstantial evidence. In this particular case it meant according to the prosecution that “the conduct of Sacco and Vanzetti after April 15 was the conduct of murderers” (Frankfurter). First of all, as it had already been explained, they came to Johnson´s garage on May 5 in order to pick up the automobile that was connected with a stolen Buick used in the South Braintree murder. Second, when arrested, both were armed; Sacco was carrying Colt automatic, while
41 Vanzetti held 38 revolver. Third, both were radicals and lastly, both told falsehoods at the police station when arrested. As to Sacco, he incorrectly stated that he was at work on the day of the holdup and made several other inaccurate statements. Additionaly, later he admitted that he had made misstatements as to his reasons for being in Bridgewater, he denied knowing Boda or Coacci and he lied about his former employment in South Braintree. So as to justify himself, then, Sacco stated that he did not want to disclose any clues against radicals. Neverthless, the prosecution argued that Sacco had made no effort to conceal his incriminating books and pamphlets before the arrest (Ehrmann 71 72). As far as Vanzetti is concerned, he had lied in the following statements: the length of time he had known Sacco, the date when he left Plymouth before his arrest, the place where he bought his revolver and his relationship with Boda. As the reasons for falsifying he claimed that he wanted to protect radical friends, since he learnt that there had been much activity against the Reds (Ehrmann 76). Linder continued that Vanzetti testified that he had gone to Bridgewater to collect the anarchist literature. However, after Sacco and Vanzetti´s execution it was revealed that they had probably gone to Bridgewater to pick up the car in order to use it to collect dynamite from comrades who had hidden it. They might have considered this explanation too damaging for them and so they avoided mentioning it (Linderpage). Despite the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of holdup and murder, once their radical beliefs and patriotism were brought up, they became the dominant emotional issues. When Sacco took the stand, Katzmann introduced misleading questions: Q: Did you say yesterday you love a free country? A: Yes, sir. Q: Did you love this country in the month of May, 1917? A: I did not say – I don´t want to say I did not love this country. Q: Did you go to Mexico to avoid being a soldier for this country that you loved? A: Yes.
42 Q: And would it be your idea of showing your love for your wife that, when she needed you, you ran away from her? A: I did not run away from her. Q: Don´t you think going away from your country is a vulgar thing to do when she needs you? A: I don´t believe in war. …. Q: What did you mean when you said yesterday you loved a free country? A: Give me a chance to explain. Q: I am asking you to explain now. A: When I was in Italy, a boy, I was a Republican, so I always thinking Republican has more chance to manage education, develop, to build some day his family, to raise the child and education, if you could. But that was my opinion; so when I came to this country I saw there was not what I was thinking before, but there was all the difference, because I been working in Italy not so hard as I been work in this country. When I started work here very hard […] I could not been afford much a family the way I did have the idea before. I could not put any money in the bank […] the free idea gives any man a chance to profess his own idea […] I could see the best men, intelligent, education, they been arrested and sent to prison and died in prison for years without getting them out, and Debs, one of the great men in his country, he is in prison, still away, still away in prison, because he is a Socialist. He wanted the laboring class to have better conditions […] but they him in prison. Why? Because the capitalist class […] they don’t want our child to go to high school or college […] We no want fight by the gun, and we don’t what to destroy young men […] all I can say, the Government put the literature, give us educations. I remember in Italy, a long time ago […] the Government they could not control very much those two – devilment went on, and robbery, so one of the government in the cabinet he says, “If you want to destroy those devilments, if you want to take off all those criminals, you ought to give a chance to Socialist literature, education of people, emancipation. That is why I destroy governments, boys.” That is why my idea I love Socialists. That is why I like people who want education and living, building, who is good, just as much as they could. That is all. (Transcript Vol. II., 1876 1877, quoted on Frankfurterpage). On the contrary, as for the consciousness of guilt, Frankfurter argued that there was no claim where the stolen money was, neither Sacco nor Vanzetti had changed their way of living, both had no previous experience with holdup as well as they were not trying to hide or live under different identity.
43 Was this the behaviour of men who had stolen great amount of money and killed two people? (Frankfurterpage) All in all, this case has attracted international attention because of the lack of evidence, as things totally irrelevant to the charge were presented to the jury. The public followed the trial by means of the press and eagerly attended the decision of the jury. In Dunbar´s weekly, a radical publication, it was written that the conduct of the trial was of melodramatic character rather than of a judicial procedure. The evidence of this case would convince any unbiased person, but the evidence itself was not as important as the fact that the defendants were foreigners, radicals and active in the work of labor organizations (FBIfilespage). On the contrary, Welsh criticized Frankfurter´s impression that the defendants were prosecuted as reds stating that this trial was for murder and had nothing to do with redness until the subject was introduced by the defense itself. He further argued that Sacco and Vanzetti received a fair trial and that Katzmann showed a great amount of patience with the witnesses, which was the direct opposite of Frankturter´s opinion (FBIfilespage). It is therefore hard where the truth lied. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the defendants were tried in a cage watched by officers in order to impress the jury and the public that they were dangerous individuals. The public followed the trial by means of the press and eagerly attended the decision of the jury (FBIfilespage).
3.4. Verdict
Having heard the testimony from 169 witnesses and observed 85 exhibits of evidence such as photographs, maps, cartridges, shells, weapons, letters, the jury came with the verdict (Kadane and Schum 13). However, before the verdict was brought up, the judge gave some instructions to the jury.
44 Though the judge had to be impartial, the following transcript of record revealed certain marks of prejudice against the defendants:
Guilt or innocence, gentlemen, of crime, do not depend upon the place of one's birth; the proportion of his wealth, his station in life, social or political, or his views on public questions prevent an honest judgment and impartial administration and enforcement of the law… […] Whoever, being armed with a dangerous weapon, assaults, robs, steals and takes from a person money or other property which may be the subject of larceny, with intent, if resisted, to kill or maim the person robbed, or, being so armed, wounds or strikes the person robbed, shall be punished by confinement in the State Prison for life. […] So you see, if a person, being armed with a dangerous weapon a 32 calibre pistol is a dangerous weapon wounds or strikes with such weapon the person whom he robs of money or personal property, such person upon conviction may be sent to State Prison for life. Therefore, if the deceased had survived the wounds, and if the person or persons who inflicted such wounds were armed with a pistol of 32 calibre, and if the sum of $15,776 was taken from the persons of the deceased or either of them by use of said pistol, then such person or persons convicted of such crime could be sent to State Prison for life. (Linderpage)
Then, five hours of deciding followed. Finally, judge Thayer was delivered the verdict: “Guilty of robbery and murder” (Borovička 291). Such was the verdict of the jury, but soon after appeared in the press opinion that the men were innocent. For instance, Clarence R.Skinnier, who reported the trial for the New Your Evening Post, said that the impression he gathered from the trial was that “the evidence of the defense was stronger than of the prosecution”. Further, J.H.Hopkins, national chaiman of the Committee of 48, wrote to the press that “the evidence against them is entirely of a circumstantial nature and in many respects of the flimsiest character”. Samuel Eliot Morrison, lecturer on history at Harward University reported: “I am astounded and grieved at the verdict in the Sacco Vanzetti case. These men are certainly innocent of the crime for which they were tried.” In the editorial of Boston American from August 15 th , the author took
45 the evidence as the most unconvincing saying that “the verdict of guilty was not justified” (FBIfilespage). In summary, then, after the trial that lasted six weeks, and during which the themes of radicalism and patriotism were contrasted by the prosecution and the defense, the verdict of guilty only marked the beginning of a struggle to save Sacco and Vanzetti. The defense made several motions, petitions and appeals in order to gain a new trial since new pieces of evidence were brought up.
46 4. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT UNTIL THE EXECUTION (1920 – 1927) 4.1. Motions and other efforts to get a new trial As it has been already stated, the period from the verdict of the jury (July 14, 1921) to the very executions of Sacco and Vanzetti (August 23, 1927) was a long battle of appeals and motions based on a mass of new evidence in order to get a new trial. Eight supplementary motions were presented by the defense to Judge Thayer within the seven years after the conviction. Nevertheless, the trial judge denied all. Among the most significant motions were the fifth, the seventh and the eighth that will be discussed in detail in this chapter. To begin with, the fifth supplementary motion, called the Hamilton – Proctor motion, was filed on April 30, 1923. Albert Hamilton was a ballistic expert who wrote to Judge Thayer that he possessed special techniques that could settle which bullets came from which guns. Despite the fact that Judge Thayer was not interested in these techniques, Hamilton studied the exhibits and concluded that “there was no connection between the bullets used at the shooting and Sacco´s revolver”. In addition, Captain Proctor, the ballistic expert of the defense, made an affidavit since he though that the jury might have misunderstood his answer when Mr. Katzmann demanded his opinion whether “bullet 3 was fired from the Colt automatic which is in evidence”. Captain Proctor stated that he though it was “consistent with being fired for that pistol”, but he did not intend “by that answer to imply that he had found any evidence that the so called mortal bullet had passed through this particular Colt automatic pistol”. He further continued that “the District Attorney well knew that I did not so intend” and therefore Mr. Katzmann framed his question accordingly. Provided he was asked the direct question whether he had found “any affirmative evidence whatever that this so called mortal bullet had passed through this particular Sacco´s pistol”, he would be
47 obliged to answer without hesitation in the negative (Frankfurterpage). In short, the prosecution was fully aware of Proctor´s opinion and therefore the form of the question had to be prearranged. To the “prearranged question”, in the affidavit of Mr. Katzmann is stated that he “did not repeatedly ask Mr. Proctor whether he had found any evidence that the mortal bullet had passed through the Sacco pistol, nor did he repeatedly tell me that if I did ask him that question he would be obliged to reply in the negative” (Transcrtipt Vol. IV., 3681, quoted in Joughin and Morgan 129). As for the second attorney of the prosecution, he stated that the so called “misleading” question of Mr. Katzmann “was suggested by Captain Proctor himself as best calculated to give him an opportunity to tell what opinion he had respecting the mortal bullet and its connection with the Sacco pistol” (Transcript Vol. IV., 3682, quoted in Joughin and Morgan 129). Secondly, there was the seventh, the most important Madeiros motion, based on the confession to the crime of Celestino Madeiros. Madeiros, who was later identified as a member of the Morelli gang, wrote on November 16, 1925 following statement: „I hear by confess to being in the shoe company crime at south Braintree on April 15, 1920 and that Sacco and Vanzetti were not there. Celestino F. Madeiros“ (Linderpage). As soon as Mr. Thompson, the defense lawyer, learnt about this statement, he rushed to the Dedham jail to investigate Madeiros, was was doing there his sentence for the holdup of the First National Bank at Wrentham where he killed the cashier (Borovicka 294). Frankurter described Madeiros as an eighteen year old boy of Porugeese origin, having already had a criminal record. Madeiros provided quite a detailed description of the crime, having revealed the facts that had been unknown. Although he did not mention the names of his companions, he said that it was the work of a gang that had been “engaged in robbing freight cars in Providence”. Besides him, there were four American born Italiens involved in the holdup, which fitted the description of the witnesses that testified to have seen foreigners of Italian origin
48 in the murder car, speaking clear and unmistakable English. Everybody could notice that Sacco and Vanzetti spoke with Italien accent. Madeiros further continued that they had exchanged the cars in order to prevent indentification and so the mystery of having seen Hudson and Buick was explained. The last thing was the question of the stolen money that were never linked either to Sacco or to Vanzetti. At the time of the arrest, Madeiros had about $2800 in the bank, which seemed to be his share in the South Braintree holdup (Fraknfurterpage). Ehrmann continued that Madeiros tried to avoid identifying his comrades because if he cannot save Sacco and Vanzetti by his confession, there was no reason for bringing four or five others into it (412). All the same, Mr. Thompson revealed the identity of his companions. He came up with the conlusion that the South Braintree holdup was the work of the Morelli gang, particularly Celestino adeiros, Tony Mancini, Frank, Joseph and Mike Morelli, and a Pole Steve (Jackson 58). The shooting itself, then, was done by Joe Morelli, the leader of the gang. As for the mortal bullet that was so strongly examined, Joe Morelli possessed the same type of gun as Sacco, more accurately, a 32 Colt automatic that fitted the description of the mortal gun. Moreover, the defense pointed at the close resemblance to Sacco. It is also worth mentioning that the prosecusion witnesses failed to identify positively Vanzetti as the driver. Since one of the members of the Morelli gang was Polish, he fitted the description of the driver given by witnesses as somebody of „northern origin“. Futhermore, the Pole as well as other two members of the Morelli gang were recognized at the trial (Frankurterpage). Later, when Ehrmann visited Mancini in prison in Auburn, where he was doing his sentence for another murder, Mancini admitted knowing Sacco and Vanzetti and stated that they were not murderers but radicals, thinking that the world wealth should be devided among all the people (Borovicka 297). Mr. Thompson was conviced about the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti and therefore he wrote to the Attorney General of the United States, John G. Sargent, reffering to the affidavit of Madeiros, expressing his opinion:
49 … the two men, although radicals, and possibly proper subjects for deportation under the existing laws, had nothing to do with the South Braintree murder, and that their execution for those murders would be and would be regarded by very large number of persons in this country and throughout the world not only as a miscarriage of justice, but as in effect a punishment of these men for their radical opinions“ (FBIfilespage). All in all, the defense built up a powerful motion for a new trial supported by the evidence of many witnesses. Since it was sometims argued that Madeiros made a „death house“ confession, it should be noted that Madeiros was never „finally adjudged guilty of the Wrentham job“ and so there was a chance to gain a new trial (Ehrmann 409). Ehrmann further declared that the story told by Madeiros, not only led to the discovery of the indictments that connected the Morellli gang with the South Braintree crime, but also explained “the almost faultless execution of the crime itself as told by witnesses at the trial” (415). It was then upon the Judge Thayer to examine the new evidence and determine true and false statements. Having studied the motion for „several weeks without interruption“, he denied the new trial on October 23, 1926, setting opinion of 25,000 words and describing Madeiros affidavit as “unreliable, untrustworthy and untrue” (Transcript Vol. V, 4748, quoted in Joughin and Morgan 145). Having read this document, Frankfurter described it as „ a farrago of misquotations, misrepresentations, suppressions and mutilations […] the opinion is literally honeycombed with demonstrable errors, and a spirit alien to judical utterance permeates the whole“ (Frankuterpage). Thirdly, the eight motion was filed on August 6, 1927. This last motion was a little bit different from the previous ones, as it was not based on the new evidence but on the prejudice of Judge Thayer, particularly on the remark of Judge Thayer he made after rejectecing the previous motion: “Did you see what I did with those anarchistic bastards the other day?” (Perniconipage)
50 In order to better understand the attitude of Judge Thayer, Joughin and Morgan compared the judical systems in England to those in the United States. According to the Englis systems, the judge had to give close attention to the weight of evidence and the credibility of witnesses. On the contrary, in most of the American states, the judge was not permitted to comment upon the weight or credibility of evidence and therefore he paid less attention to the facts. Of course, it is necessary to note that the judge had to be fair and impartial. The Sacco Vanzetti case was not only the question of guilt or innocence but mainly of the fairness of the trial. Similarly to the previous motions, Judge Thayer denied the eight motion (115). In sum, all the motions for a new trial were denied by Judge Thayer. Borovicka revealed that there had been some intriques between the Ministry of Justice and the Commonwealth of Massachussets, as the Ministry of Justice had the power to influence the verdict of the trial. More accurately, the Ministry of Justice needed to get rid of Sacco and Vanzetti because of their anarchist activities. At that time, Italian anarchists were at the top of the list of government´s enemies, being suspected from bombings and assasination attempts. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Justice had no direct prooves against Sacco and Vanzetti, and so they hoped that Sacco and Vanzetti revealed their anarchistic activity during the process. As a result, then, they would be expelled from the country. Such was the way how the trial turned from criminal into political case (300). The last thing worth mentioning was the foundation of the Sacco Vanzetti Committee. The day after the arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti, Aldino Felicani, a member of the anarchist group to which both defendants belonged, set up that Committee. The aim of the Committee was to save the two prisoners from the electric chair by means of producing articles, bulletins, pamphlets or even organizing labour movement. Similarly to the motion filed by the defense, they did not succeed in granting a new trial (FBIfilespage).
51 4.2. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts
All the motions having been denied, the prosecution decided to turn upon the Supreme Court of Massachusetts with the complaint that Judge Thayer was prejudiced and did not act correctly. Their complaint was discussed, yet it was denied. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts approved the decision of Judge Thayer on April 5, 1927 stating that they found „no error“ in any of his rulings (Borovicka 302). 4.3. Sentencing April 9, 1927, Sacco and Vanzetti lost all their hopes for freedom. In the following transcript, Judge Thayer imposed the sentence on them. Both Sacco and Vanzetti were convinced about their innocence and stated that the only crime they had committed was that they were foreigners and belonged to an anarchist group. However, they were proud of their anarchist activity. MR. WILBAR: It appears by the record of this Court, I your Honor please, that […] these defendants stand convicted of murder in the first degree […] I would suggest that the sentence to be imposed shall be executed some time during the week beginning Sunday, July 10 next. (Ehrmann 450) CLERK WORTHINGTON : Nicola Sacco, have you anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon you? NICOLLA SACCO: I never knew, never heard, even read in history anything so cruel as this Court. After seven years prosecuting they still consider us guilty. And these gentle people here are arrayed with us in this court today […] You know it, Judge Thayer you know all my life, you know why I have been here, and after seven years that you have been persecuting me and my poor wife, and you still today sentence us to death. I would like to tell all my life, but what is the use? You know all about what I say before, that is, my comrade, will be talking, because he is more familiar with the lan guage, and I will give him a chance. My comrade, the kind man to all the children, you sentenced him two times, in the Bridgewater case and the Dedham case, connected with me, and you know he is innocent. (Linderpage) CLERK WORTHINGTON: Bartolomeo Vanzetti, have you anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon you? BARTOLOMEO VANZETTI: …Now, I should say that I am not only innocent of all these things, not only have I never committed a real
52 crime in my life though some sins but not crimes not only have I struggled all my life to eliminate crimes, the crimes that the official law and the moral law condemns, but also the crime that the moral law and the official law sanction and sanctify, the exploitation and the oppression of the man by the man, and if there is a reason why I am here as a guilty man, if there is a reason why you in a few minutes can doom me, it is this reason and none else […] We were tried during a time whose character has now passed into history. I mean by that, a time when there was a hysteria of resentment and hate against the people of our principles, against the foreigner, against slackers, and it seems to me rather, I am positive of it, that both you and Mr. Katzmann have done all what it were in your power in order to work out, in order to agitate still more the passion of the juror, the prejudice of the juror, against us […]This is what I say: I would not wish to a dog or to a snake, to the most low and misfortunate creature of the earth I would not wish to any of them what I have had to suffer for things that I am not guilty of. I am suffering because I am a radical and indeed I am a radical; I have suffered because I was an Italian, and indeed I am an Italian; I have suffered more for my family and for my beloved than for myself; but I am so convinced to be right that you can only kill me once but if you could execute me two times, and if I could be reborn two other times, I would live again to do what I have done already. I have finished. Thank you. (The New Decade 261) JUDGE THAYER : Under the law of Massachusetts the jury says whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. The Court has absolutely nothing to do with that question. The law of Massachusetts provides that a judge cannot deal in any way with the facts. As far as he can go under our law is to state the evidence. During the trial many exceptions were taken. Those exceptions were taken to the Supreme Judicial Court. That Court, after examining the entire record, after examining all the exceptions, that Court in its final words said, "The verdicts of the jury should stand; exceptions overruled." That being true, there is only one thing that this Court can do. It is not a matter of discretion. It is a matter of statutory requirement, and that being true there is only one duty that now devolves upon this Court, and that is to pronounce the sentence. First the Court pronounces sentence upon Nicola Sacco: It is considered and ordered by the Court that you, Nicola Sacco, suffer the punishment of death by the passage of a current of electricity through your body within the week beginning on Sunday, the tenth day of July, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty seven. This is the sentence of the law. Then upon Vanzetti: It is considered and ordered by the Court that you, Bartolomeo Vanzetti . . . BARTOLOMEO VANZETTI: Wait a minute, please,
53 your Honor. May I speak for a minute with my lawyer, Mr.Thompson? THOMPSON : I do not know what he has to say. JUDGE THAYER: I think I should pronounce the sentence...... Bartolomeo Vanzetti, suffer the punishment of death..... NICOLLA SACCO: You know I am innocent. Those are the same words I pronounced seven years ago. You condemn two innocent men. JUDGE THAYER: … by the passage of a current of electricity through your body within the week beginning on Sunday, the tenth day of July, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty seven. This is the sentence of the law. (Linderpage) 4.4. Opinion of the public The 1920´s are described as a period of great economic, political and social change in the United Staes. On one hand, there was a positive effect on the society as increasing personal freedom or economic development. On the other hand, the period was marked by rising intolerance and limited immigration that resulted in the fact that immigrants were often hatred and suspected (WorldNewspage). To begin with, the community knew that Sacco and Vanzetti were Italians and working men, but the most widely known and discussed issue was their radicalism. “America, and the people of Norfolk county, did not look with favor upon agitators, foreigners, and slackers. Sacco and Vanzetti were these things. They were also something much worse – radicals” (Joughin and Morgan 208). It is therefore understandable that under the period of Red Scare and owing to anarchistic activities, the majority of the public was scared and consequently needed to accuse somebody. On the contrary, among the groups that were favorable to Sacco and Vanzetti were „the foreign born, particularly Italians, labor, political parties of the left, anarchists, intellectual students of social problems and defenders of civil liberty“ (Joughin and Morgan 222). As far as the point of view of the press is concerned, it was not stable. At the beginning of the trial, they were hostile to Sacco and Vanzetti. When Louis Stark, an editor of The New York Times, was sent to Boston
54 in order to interview the Judge, Judge Thayer revealed to him his attitute saying „I hope that The New York Times is not going to take the side of these anarchists“ (Joughin and Morgan 239). However, nearly five years passed and as the interest in the men increased, the press changed the attitude towards Sacco and Vanzetti, making a distinction between radical sentiments and the rightness or wrongness of the execution (Joughin and Morgan 239 240). As an example, the attitude of The Boston Herald could be mentioned. Since the public started to be nervous because the trial lasted so long, James E. King, an editor of The Boston Herald, was entrusted to investigate the case so as to dismiss the doubts about the guilt of Sacco and Vanzetti. Nevertheless, he failed to bring any prooves about their guilt and suprisingly, he concluded that they were innocent and published the following editorial in The Boston Herald: We do not know whether these men are guilty or not. We have no sympathy with the half baked views which they profess. But as months have merged into years and the great debate over this case has continued, our doubts have solidified slowly into convictions, and reluctantly we have found ourselves compelled to reverse our original judgement. We hope that the supreme judical court will grant a new trial on the basis of new evidence not yet examined in open court. (Jackson 61 62) In other words, the trial was no more the question of guilt or innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti but it became the question of the fairness of the trial and prestige of American justice. Similar attitude was independently addopted by other newspaper such as The Republican, The Times, The Sun, The Daily Tribune and The Washington News. All demanded a new trial due to new evidence and Madeiros confession (Joughin and Morgan 248). Linder further continued that many right thinking people in America conveyed the opinion that Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent. Among the supporters can be mentioned John Dewey, Norman Thomas, Walter Lippman, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Thomas Mann, Arthur Schlesinger and others... (Linderpage). John Dos Passos revealed his own feeling in his triology U.S.A. declaring:
55 „All right you have won you will kill the brave men our friends tonight…America our nation has been bratem by strangers who have turned our language inside out ho have taken the clean words our fathers spoke and made them slimy and foul… all right we are two nations“ (Newmann 119) All the same, according to Joughin and Morgan, about eighty per cent of the public of Massachusetts desired to have the defendants executed because they were convinced that the granting of life to Sacco and Vanzetti would deeply hurt the prestige of the Commonwealth (297). Having ignored the problem of justice, they wanted to be protected from the threat of radicalism (271).
4.5. Governor Alvan T. Fuller and The Lowell Committee
The last possibility of saving lives of Sacco and Vanzetti was to send to the Governor of Massachussets, Alvan T. Fuller, a demand for executive clemency. This document, where Vanzetti asked for review and throughout investigation becase the Judge had been prejudiced, was signed only by Vanzetti. Sacco refused to sign because neither did he have faith in the governor, nor did he believe in his clemency. It was widely known that Fuller, a highly successful bussinessman, did not like anarchists, and therefore he selected assistants in order to avoid the responsibility for the final decision. In addition, The Lowell Committee headed by the president of Harvard University, Abbott Lawrence Lowel, was set up (Borovicka 307). Kadane and Schum added the other members of the Committee as Samuel W. Stratton, president of Massachussets Institute of Technology, and Robert A. Grant, former judge of probate court. Having heard the witnesses and studied their testimony, the Committe concluded that both Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty and above all, they received a fair trial (15). The governor released the report of the Committee on August 6, 1927. In fact, the report responded to these questions: firstly, whether the trial was
56 fairly conducted, secondly, if the subsequently discovered evidence was sufficient to grant a new trial and thirdly, whether Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty of the murder beyond reasonable doubt. The first question was responded in the affirmative, in other words, they “have no evidence sufficient to make them believe that the trial was unfair“. The Committee further continued: „We do not believe that he used some of the expressions attributed to him (Judge Thayer), and we think that there is exaggeration in what the persons to whom he spoke remember” (Transcript Vol. V., 5378 quoted on Linderpage). “The expression attributed to him” probably reffered to “anarchistic bastards”, the words of Judge Thayer meaning Sacco and Vanzetti. As for the second question, having investigated the newly discovered evidence and Madeiros confession, the Committee reported that “without considering the contradictory evidence, it does not seem to the Committee that these affidavits to corroborate a worthless confession are of such weight as to deserve serious attention” (Transcript Vol. V., 5378, quoted in Ehrmann 523). However, it certainly did not get “serious attention”. To the last question, the Committee returned it in an affirmative question stating “the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt”. They particularly emphasized the fact that both Sacco and Vanzetti acted suspiciously at the time of the arrest and that they were heavily armed. It has been urged that a crime of this kind must have been committed by professionals, and it is for well known criminal gangs that one must look, but to hte Committee both this crime and the one at Bridgewater do not seem to bear the marks of profesionals, but of men inexpert in such crimes. (Transcript Vol. V., 5378, quoted in Joughin and Morgan 156)
Finally, on August 3, 1927, governor Fuller announced his desicion based on the report of the Lowell Committe declaring that he found „no justification for executive intervention“ (Joughin and Morgan 156). Consequently, in Boston Sunday appeared the article “Sacco Vanzetti Guilty and Had a Fair Trial” , whose aim was to inform the pubic about the point of view
57 of the Comittee, dealing with the issue of radicalism during the trial, Madeiros confession and the value of the testimony of new witnesses (FBIfilespage). It is also worth mentiong that a petition with over 600,000 names from all over the world was sent to the governor´s office (Linderpage). The names of George Bernard Shaw, Albert Einstein, H.G. Wells, Romain Rolland, Anatole France and John Galsworthy and of other well known writers appeared on the list (Sann´s page). 4.6. Seven years of imprisonment Overall, Sacco and Vanzetti spent seven years in the prison. After the arrest, Vanzetti was sent to Charlestown prison, he was even put in the same cell as where he had done his sentence for the alledged participation in the Bridgewater holdup. From the beginning, Vanzetti knew there was only a little chance to gain freedom. However, he was decided not to give up and therefore he spent most of the time writing letters. Apart form the letters to his friends, he wrote to the Defense Committee, where he declared that they were innocent and called for revenge (Borovicka 292). If we have to die for a crime of which we are innocent […] we ask for revenge in our names and in the names of our living and dead […] I will make a list of honor of the pejurors who murdered us […] I will try to see Thayer death…I will put fire into the human breaths. (Vanzetti 119 120, quoted in Avrich 212) It was apparent that Vanzetti hated Judge Thayer. Though he had the same opionion of Governor Fuller, he wrote to him a long letter where he summarized all the evidence emhasizing the discrepancies that pointed towards their innocence. He even tried to explain the things directly to governor when he visited “reds in prison”, as it appeared in the newpapers (FBIfilespage). As for Sacco, he was sent to Dedham prison. He suffered more that Vanzetti during the imprisonment since he missed his family. Such a state of anxiety resulted in the deep depression and paranoia because he was
58 obsessed by the idea that somebody is going to kill him. He even started to keep the hunger strike, but as he got worse, he ended up the department of psychiatry. However, the medical examiner stated that he is in good condition and could return to the Dedham prison (Borovicka 292). Similar to Vanzetti, Sacco felt innocent and wanted reverenge claiming “we proud for death” […] “and fall as the anarchists can fall. It is up to you now, brothers, comrades!” (Vanzetti 69, quoted in Avrich 212) Avrich continued that their radical comrades did not disappoint them. On May 10, 1927, a package bomb addressed to Governor Fuller was intercepted in the Boston office. In addition, three months later, bombs exploded in New York and Philadelphia (212). All in all, they both knew they failed to get a new trial and they had to die. „We have no hope, we are lost”. As to the visit of the governor, Vanzetti remarked: … governor Alvan T. Fuller is a murderer as Thayer, Katzmann, the State perjurors and all the other. He shake hand with me like a brother, make me believe he was honestly intentioned and that he had not sent the three carbarn boy to have no escuse to save us. Now ignoring and denia all the proofs of our innocence and insult us and murder us. (Linderpage).
4.7. The execution
The higest degree of public interest in the Sacco Vanzetti case was reached in August 1927. As this month was the last one of the life of Sacco and Vanzetti, there were violent demostrations held throughout the whole world. Among the most significant were srikes in Paris, London, Geneva or Boston and New York. The battle to save the two prisoners definitely ended on August 23, 1927 (libcom.org.page). Their execution came seven years after the crime and six years they had been found guilty. The day of the execution the Charlestown City Square was full of thousands people. Sacco went first. His last words said in the mother tongue were: „Eviva la anarchia!“ (Long live
59 the anarchy!). Then, quitely in English whispered “farewell my wife and child and all my friends“ and having a mask on his face, he called “mama” and died. Vanzetti entered the death room, proclaiming that he was innocent and had never committed a crime. Then he died. Madeiros was executed the same day (Russellpage).
Thus was the death of Sacco and Vanzetti but their names have continued for the next years. The impact of the Sacco Vanzetti case will be studied in the next chapter.
60 5. AFTERMATH
The exucution of Sacco and Vanzetti resulted in the fight to clear their names started. In 1927, the bronze sculpture showing the two Italians facing justice was made. To begin with, a lot of newspapers gave elaborative and editorial comment on that issue. Among the most important American newspapers were the Outlook (August 31, 1927) and the Independent (September 3, 1927). As for foreign newspapers, this issue appeared in the Salzburger Volksblatt, the Vienna Reichpost, the Moscow Worker and the French Humanité. One year later, the Transcript of Records was published, which brough out even more interest in the case and consequently many books were published, among them also The Lettres of Sacco and Vanzetti, a collection of the lettres from prison. As for the titles of the other books, the case became the subject of Maxwell Anderson and Harold Nickerson´s play Gods of the Lightning, it is reflected in Upton Sinclair´s novel Boston and in sonnets of Edna St. Vincent Millay (Justice Denied in Massachussets). The Sacco Vanzetti case was also depicted in the Cartoons from the Daily Worker by Fred Ellis, which is a collection of fourteen cartoons conceived with great originality and „executed with masterful technique“ (Ehrmann 318 – 322). In addition, the Sacco Vanzetti Committee published many reports. The last official one was the Sacco Vanzetti Memorial Bulletin, an article comparing the seventeeth century witchcraft with the Sacco Vanzetti case, containg quotations from the editorials, letters and poems (Ehrmann 347). Consequently, the final act of violence from the anarchists came on September 27, 1932, when a bomb exploded near the house of Judge Thayer. He was not injured, yet he died seven months later (Russellpage). As the years passed, the 50 th anniversary of the Sacco Vanzetti execution was approaching. The shadow of unjustice was still laying on the state of Massachusetts, and so on August 23, 1977, governor of Massachusetts, Michael S. Dukakis, issued such a proclamation:
61 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were Italian immigrants who lived and worked in Massachusetts while openly professing their beliefs in the doctrines of anarchism […] the trial and execution of Sacco and Vanzetti should serve to remind all civilized people of the constant need to guard against our susceptibility to prejudice, our intolerance of unorthodox ideas, and our failure to defend the rights of persons who are looked upon as strangers in our midst…. (Jackson 88 89)
Dukakis continued and concluded with the following words:
Therefore, I, Michael S. Dukakis, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ... hereby proclaim Tuesday, August 23, 1977, "NICOLA SACCO AND BARTOLOMEO VANZETTI MEMORIAL DAY"; and declare, further, that any stigma and disgrace should be forever removed from the names of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, from the names of their families and descendants, and so ... call upon all the people of Massachusetts to pause in their daily endeavors to reflect upon these tragic events, and draw from their historic lessons the resolve to prevent the forces of intolerance, fear, and hatred from ever again uniting to overcome the rationality, wisdom, and fairness to which our legal system aspires. (Russellpage)
However, this proclamation does not state that Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent but it only acknowledged that they did not receive a fair trial. A pardon for the two Italians was alos considered but rejected, as it would have admitted their guilt. Consecutively, seventy years to the day of the execution, Thomas Menino, the first Italian American mayor of Boston, dedicated a memorial to Sacco and Vanzetti (court tv.page).
To sum up, that acknowledgement can be considered as Sacco and Vanzetti legacy because their guilt or innocence was never definitely proven. The case was an example how prejudice and fear of anarchism could affect the legal system, which resulted in the lost of people´s lives.
62 6. METHODOLOGY SECTION Though Sacco Vanzetti case deals mainly with law trying to show that injustice was done, it is a story of two Italian immigrants that the teacher could use in the lesson of English. In general, stories are motivating and can develop a positive attitude towards foreign language. Moreover, provided the students are interested in the story, they could more easily learn the foreign language. As Sacco Vanzetti case is a part of American culture, following pages provide some suggestion on how to use their story in the lesson. 6.1. Various activities based on the Sacco – Vanzetti case First of all, the teacher prepares a summary of the Sacco Vanzetti case. In other words, it will be a simple story of two Italian immigrants comming to America, briefly describing their fates. Pre listening activities: Write on the blackboard the title “Justice Failed: The Sacco Vanzetti Case” and let the students guess what they are going to speak about. They are divided into groups and ask to brainstorm all words that come to their minds when hearing such a title. They discuss their ideas together with the teacher. Write the keywords of the story (death penalty, defense, prosecution, anarchism, prejudice, trial, guilt, innocence) on the blackboard and check whether the students understand their meaning. Provided the students understand the meaning, ask them to write down the definition of the words (in pairs). If they did not know the meaning, one student is given the translation of the key words
63 so that he could explain the meaning to his friend. Check their explanation with the definition of monolingual dictionary. These activities are suitable as an introduction of the story as well as a warm up, just let the students speak. Listening activities: Ask the students to make notes so that they could be able to answer following questions: Who was the story about? Where did the story take place? What was the problem? Did the main characters receive a fair trial? Was the judge prejudiced? Who was Madeiros? What happened to the main characters? In your opinion, did Sacco and Vanzetti receive a fair trial? Discuss the role of the anarchist background. After the reading, the students discuss their answers in small groups and then each group is asked to retell a part of the story. Post listening activities ideas for further discussion: Are there any immigrants in our country? Put down the reasons that lead people to immigration. Discuss the role of “foreigner” in societies. Compare the situation before and after the Velvet Revolution. As for grammar, apart from the past tenses, the students can practice conditional clauses: What would have happened if there had been another judge? If you were the judge, what would you do?
64 If you had to emmigrate, which country would you choose and why? 6.2. Using the film version of the Sacco-Vanzetti Case in the classroom
Giuliano Montaldo, an Italian director, directed in 1971 the film called Sacco and Vanzetti. It is not necessary to view the whole film, as it might be too long. The teacher only focuses on some parts, showing the most important points of the story. If the students are interested in the case, they can watch the whole film on their own. „Films are an excellent source of authentic spoken language in context a resource for both language and culture. This is especially true when it's American language and culture“ (Johnson page). Pre viewing activities: Write the title and let the students predict what the film will be about, or let them at least think about the genre. Explain the keywords.
Viewing activities
The students are asked to answer a set of questions about the content. Show a scene without the sound he students have to make up the dialog. Assign the students or group of students to follow the actions of a particular character.
Post viewing
Write a review of the film. Describe the life of the character that you like/dislike.
65
Further discussion:
How would the movie have been different if there had been another judge than judge Thayer? Divide the class into two groups and discuss the pros and cons of the case (evidence of procesution and defense). How do cultural norms influence the action? Would the plot have been different if the case had taken place in another country? Debate the role of anarchism.
The use of various activities and different methods in the lessons of English depends on the creativity of the teacher and on the level of students´ English.
66 CONCLUSION The Sacco Vanzetti case became an international „cause célèbre“ during the period of 1919 1927 and still remains controversial proceedings in the history. The problem of the identity of the murderers, the problem of incomplete evidence against the men and finally the problem of a prejudiced judge were examined throughout the diploma thesis. All these things resulted in the major question whether Sacco and Vanzetti had received a fair trial. Having been sentenced to death, Sacco and Vanzetti still had their defenders and accusers. Among the people that pronounced Sacco and Vanzetti guilty based on the evidence were most of the native born, the rich and the conservative. Opposed were the poor and the radical, who believed that the two men were innocent victims of political situation and they deserve at least a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence. As for the personalities of the two men, on one hand, Sacco and Vanzetti, they were both loving, honest, friendly, sensitive and hard working people. Both wanted to go back to Italy. If they had managed to do so, there would have been no “Sacco Vanzetti Case”. On the contrary, they remained dedicated anarchists until the very end of their lives, who would stop at nothing to help the anarchistic movement advanced. However, it is very difficult to be objective about this case and determine guilt or innocence. Arguments supporting their innocence were important, but indirect. The following questions pointing to the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti stayed unanswered: what happened to the $16,000 that were never linked either to Sacco or to Vanzetti? If the Morelli gang did not commit the murder, who were the other three criminals together with Sacco and Vanzetti responsible for the crime? Why were the members of the Morelli gang not questioned? Overall, it will be probably never determined whether Sacco or Vanzetti were guilty or not. I agree with the words
67 of Herbert B. Ehrmann, who claimed that the interest in this case „will not die“. Many people believed that the verdict of Judge Thayer marked the injustice and intolerance of American society during that period. The objective of my work was to provide an overall view on the Sacco Vanzetti case, examing the evidence and their anarchist activity that finally led to their death. Shortly, in my opinion, Sacco and Vanzetti had to die because of being foreigners and what was even worse for the American society, they were radicals. The American society needed to accuse and convict anybody of the crime, no matter whether he was guilty or innocent. The indisputable fact therefore remained that Sacco and Vanzetti did not receive a fair trial and they knew it. In my point of view, there could not have been another judge more prejudiced and cruel than judge Thayer. Sacco Vanzetti case being part of American history and consequently the culture being inseparable part of learning foreign language, the story of Sacco and Vanzetti could be used in the classroom. In general, stories develop critical thinking, encourage group work and help students to be aware of cultural values as they are asked to do various tasks based on the story. As for the culture in the Sacco Vanzetti case, the students can explore the theme of immigration or anarchism. Besides, grammar and vocabulary can be trained. Could Sacco and Vanzetti have been saved? Having analyzed the political and social problems of that period, considered the fear of Reds that played an important role, and examined the opinion of the majority in the United Stated, I came to the conclusion that it did not seem so. In other words, Sacco and Vanzetti were denied fair trial because of their foreign origin and radical activities. Whether they were guilty or not will probably never be definitely determined – though no one can read their speaches to the court and their letters without doubting if justice was done. (Allen 86)
68 Summary:
Diploma Thesis “Failed Justice. The Sacco Vanzetti Case” provides an overall view on the case, laying the murder and robbery into political and social background. It examines the evidence, emphasizing the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti did not receive a fair trial because of their radical activities and foreign origin.
69 Bibliography:
Alken, Frederik L. Only Yesterday . Harper and Raw Publisher, 1957. America Through The Eyes of Its People. Primary Sources in Američan History , second edition, Longman Publisher, 1997. Avrich, Paul. Sacco and Vanzetti : The Anarchist Background . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1991. Borovička, Pavel. Procesy, které vzrušily svět . Praha: Svoboda, 1989. Frankfurter, Felix. The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti: A Critical Analysis for Lawyers and Laymen . New York: Universal Library, 1962. Fast Howard. Utrpení Sacca a Vanzettiho . Praha: Stání nakladatelství krásné literatury a umění, 1995. Hermann, Herbert B. The Case That Will Not Die . Boston: Little Brown, 1969. Jackson, Brian. The Black Flag, A look back at the strange case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti . Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. Joughin, Louis and Morgan, Edmund M. The Legacy of Sacco and Vanzetti . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1948). Kadane, Joseph B. and Schum, David A. A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence . New York: John Wiley, 1996.
70 May, Ernest R. and the Editors of life. The Life History of The United States .Volume 10: War, Boom and Bust. New York: Time Incorporated, 1964. Meade, Marion. What Fresh Hell is This? Dorothy Parker, A Biography. (chapter 10), Villard Books, 1987. Morison, Samuel E. The Oxford History of the American People . New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Newman, Joseph. 200 years. A Bicentennial Illustrated History of the United States . Washington, D.C: News and World Report. Inc., 1975. O’Sullivan, Lane and Maurice. American Reader 1900 1945 .Washington D.C.,1995. Wajnryb, Ruth. Stories . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
71 Internet sources: Famous American Trial. The Trial of Sacco and Vanzetti 1921. The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial. 18 Dec. 2006. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/SaccoV.htm. The Red Scare . The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial. 18 Dec. 2006. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/redscare.html. The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology. The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial . 18 Dec. 2006. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/chronology.html. The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: Key Figures. The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial. 18 Dec. 2006. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/biographies.html. Excerpts from the Trial of Sacco & Vanzetti . The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial . 18 Dec. 2006. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/S&Vtestimony.html Summary of Evidence in the Sacco & Vanzetti Case. The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial. 18 Dec. 2006. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/s&vevidence.html. Speeches by Sacco and Vanzetti to the Court at the Time of Sentencing (April 9, 1927 at the Dedham Court House). The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial. 18 Dec. 2006. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/courtspeech.html.
72 Petitions, Reports, and Appellate Court and Clemency Decisions Concerning the Trial of Sacco & Vanzetti The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial. 18 Dec. 2006. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/appellcourt.html. Letters From Prison, 1921 1927. The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial. 18 Dec. 2006. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/S&Vletters.htmlThe Sacco Vanzetti Sacco and Vanzetti . Sacco and Vanzetti – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.. 19 Dec. 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti. D´Attilio, Robert. Sacco Vanzetti Case . The Sacco Vanzetti Case (overview). 28 Dec. 2006. http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html. Newby, Richard. Sacco and Vanzetti Reconvicted. 28 Dec. 2006. http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/newby sacvan.html Russell, Auito. All about Sacco and Vanzetti . Crime library. 2 Jan. 2007. http://www.crimelibrary.com/sacco/saccomain.htm. The execution of Sacco and Vanzetti . 1916 1927: The execution of Sacco and Vanzetti / libcom.org. 1916 – 1927. . 2 Jan. 2007. http://libcom.org/history/articles/sacco vanzetti/. Immigration. Justice.Ethnicity. Politics . Sacco and Vanzetti. 5 Jan. 2007. http://www.willowpondfilms.com/sacco_and_vanzetti.html. Prejudice At Work . Sacco and Vanzetti. 10 Jan. 2007. http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Sacco Vanzetti/sacvan.htm
73 Kemp, Kevin. Obstructed Justice: Society’s Prejudice in the Sacco and Vanzetti Trial. Sacco and Vanzetti. 10 Jan. 2007. http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Sacco Vanzetti/kevkemp.html. O´Ryan, Dave. Sweet Land of Liberty. A look at how prejudice played a role in the Sacco and Vanzetti trial. Sacco and Vanzetti. Background. 15 Jan. 2007. http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Sacco Vanzetti/davoryan.htm. Katie, Sophiea. The Sacco Vanzetti Controversy: A Question of Prejudicial Justice . Sacco and Vanzetti. 15 Jan. 2007. http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Sacco Vanzetti/katieso.htm. Hackney, Tom. Tainted Justice: The Trial of Sacco and Vanzetti . Sacco and Vanzetti. Tom´s page. 15 Jan. 2007. http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Sacco Vanzetti/tomhack.htm. Sacco/Vanzetti Case. Federal Bureau of Investigation . 15 Jan. 2007 http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/vanzetti.htm. Sann, Paul. Those Anarchist Bastards . The lawless decade. 12 Feb. 2007. http://www.lawlessdecade.net/new1927 3.html. 1927: The murder of Sacco and Vanzetti . 1927: The murder of Sacco and Vanzetti – libcom.org/history. 12 Feb. 2007. http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/sacco vanzetti/. Pernicone, Nunzio. About the Sacco Vanzetti Case. Modern American Poetry. 20 Feb. 2007. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/imillay/sacco.htm.
74 Linder, Dougles. The Trial of Sacco and Vanzetti . Sacco and Vanzetti Account. 20 Feb. 2007. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/s&vaccount.html. Sacco Vanzetti. The Sacco Vanzetti Case. 22 Feb. 2007. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsacco.htm. Women Gain Rights, Fashion, and Flappers (The 1920's) . Roaring Twenties. World News. 3 March 2007. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005846/categories/worldnews/worldn.htm. The Roaring Twenties. Trends and Themes of the Era . US History. 3 March 2007. http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter16.rhtml. Boston to honour Sacco and Vanzetti . Library Electronic Texts Kiosk. 4 March 2007. http://www.infoshop.org/texts/sacco_boston.html. Porter, Bill. Sacco and Vanzetti finally find their streets of golds . Library Electronic Texts Kiosk. 4 March 2007. http://www.infoshop.org/texts/sacco_gold.html.
Coull, Dave. Still Controversial Sacco & Vanzetti . Library Electronic Texts Kiosk. 4 March 2007. http://www.infoshop.org/texts/contro.html. Zinn, Howard. Sacco and Vanzetti . 20 April 2007. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12575. Carol Vanderveer Hamilton. American Writers and the Sacco Vanzetti Case. 5 June 2007. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/millay/hamilton.htm.
75 Show marks 75th year of Sacco and Vanzetti trial. Yale buletin and calendar. 5 June 2007. http://www.yale.edu/opa/v31.n6/story10.html. Vera B. Weisbord. Remember Sacco and Vanzetti . 7 June 2007. http://www.weisbord.org/SaccoVanzetti.htm. Jim Fisher. Firearms Identification in the Sacco Vanzetti Case . 10 June 2007. http://jimfisher.edinboro.edu/forensics/sacco1_1.html. Felix Frankturter. The case of Sacco and Vanzetti . 10 June 2007. http://law.jrank.org/pages/12207/Frankfurter Felix case Sacco Vanzetti.html. Douglas Linder. The truth about their guilt or innocence. 10 June 2007. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials17.htm. Marlene Martin. Sacco and Vanzetti. Two Immigrants Targeted For Their Belief . 10 June 2007. http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab025/sandv.html Johnson, Kitty. Film in the classroom . 5 Aug. 2007. http//www.salzburgseminar.org/ASC/csacl/progs/EFL/FILM.htm
76 ANNEXES
Annexe 1 - Chronology: December 24, 1919: Attempted holdup in Bridgewater April 15, 1920: Murders at South Braintree May 3, 1920: Death in New York of Salsedo May 5, 1920: Arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti June 11, 1920: Indictment of Vanzetti for Bridgewater holdup June 22 to July 1, 1920: Trial at Plymouth of Vanzetti for Bridgewater holdup August 16, 1920: Sentence of Vanzetti for Bridgewater holdup September 11, 1920: Indictment of Sacco and Vanzetti for South Braintree murders May 31 to July 14, 1921: Trial of Sacco and Vanzetti at Dedham November 8, 1921: First supplementary motion filed (Ripley) May 4, 1922: Second supplementary motion filed (Gould and Pelser) July 22, 1922: Third supplementary motion filed (Goodridge) September 11, 1922: Fourth supplementary motion filed (Andrews) April 30, 1923: Fifth supplementary motion filed (Hamilton) October 1, 1924: Decisions by Judge Thayer denying all motions November 16, 1925: First written confession by Madeiros May 12, 1926: Conviction of Sacco and Vanzetti affirmed by Supreme Judical Court May 22, 1926: Investigation of Madeiros story begun by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Ehrmann¨ May 26, 1926: Motion based on Madeiros´s statement filed October 23, 1926: Decision by Judge Thayer denying motion January 27 and 28, 1927: Appeal from denial of Madeiros´s motion argued before Supreme Judical Court April 5, 1927: Denial of motion affirmed April 9, 1927: Sentence imposed by Judge Thayer on Sacco and Vanzetti May 3, 1927: Petition for clemency addressed to Governor Fuller
77 June 1, 1927: Advisory Committee appointed by Governor Fuller August 3, 1927: Decision by Governor Fuller denying clemency August 8, 1927: Motion denied by Judge Thayer August 16, 1927: Exceptions to denial of motion and petition argued Supreme Judical Court August 19, 1927: Exceptions overruled by Supreme Judical Court August 23, 1927: Sacco and Vanzetti and Madeiros executed
78