The Sacco and Vanzetti vs. The State trial was a big deal in the early 1920s. The whole world was caught up in conversation over the murder of a payroll person and his guard. The suspected murderers and burglars of these two men were two Italian anarchists. On April 15, 1920, two men approached the payroll and the guard, shot them, grabbed the money and ran away outside of the Slater and Merrill shoe company. A week after the killing Sacco and Vanzetti were spotted with a known anarchist with a criminal history named Boda. Boda and for men, including Sacco and Vanzetti were going to a car shop were a car was located. The police were called on the 5 of them and they all fled the scene once they realized what was going on. Sacco and Vanzetti were caught a few blocks down the road.
The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti was a very controversial one to say the least. The judge was believed to be corrupt but no one could prove it. The lawyers of Sacco and Vanzetti didn't exactly do a great job either. They failed to question certain evidence brought up against them; in particular, the guns that were believed be carried by the guards, and the guns that were found on Sacco and Vanzetti. Sacco was carrying a 32 as was the guard and Vanzetti was carrying a 38. Another piece of the trial that creates controversy was the fact that Vanzetti had an allaby for the Bridgewater event but was still accused for it anyway.
In the end, Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted for the murder of the two people at South Braintree whether or not they actually committed the crime. Both stayed humble at their executions. They stated that they loved their families and their country no matter what the result of their trial was.
I agree with Connor that the trial was arguable, and that this was biased against Sacco and Vanzetti. The two reasons pointed out show how they had nothing to do with the other incident, but because of their history, they were wanted to be proved against by the judges. Although the judges used their witnesses to prove them wrong and they were biased against anarchists, it is very hard for them to show why they were the ones that killed the other. An eye witness can lie at any moment, there is no specific evidence showing their fault. I still don't understand why the judges were so against Sacco and Vanzetti.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if because of the radio that the entire country was emotionally involved with they case and if each of them took a side. I think this would cause even more conflict within the nation. People would have been separated by their beliefs and take on the case because people assume that their side on the case would have reflected their religious beliefs. It is a lot how people today judge each other on their sides of political conflicts.
ReplyDeleteTo add on to the post above regarding "evidence" that was used to convict Sacco and Vanzetti, this case's outcome was influenced by "consciousness of guilt," the idea that a person who is innocent has nothing to hide and can speak frankly and openly, and a person who is guilty has something to hide and will reveal that by not being frank or truthful. Because Sacco and Vanzetti did lie, it was thought they must be guilty. However, there may have been other reasons that Sacco and Vanzetti lied that were unrelated to the murder, such as the fact that they were anarchists and were afraid of deportation. Additionally, irrelevant information during cross examination, such as the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti fled to Mexico to avoid being drafted in WWI, was used to convict them of the crime by appealing to the jury's patriotism.
ReplyDelete