The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-16-2002, 04:26 PM
Tretiak Tretiak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
sacco and Vanzetti: Guilty or not?

What is the historical take on Sacco and Vanzetti? Were they probably guilty or not?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-16-2002, 07:14 PM
Qwertyasdfg Qwertyasdfg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Probably not. Their verdict was heavily biased by their race, atheism, anarchism, and draft dodging. In fact, I don't have a cite but I think I remember seeing on the History Channel that someone else was eventually caught for the murder.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-16-2002, 07:36 PM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ass end of Alberta
Posts: 17,892
This is probably the best source of information about the Sacco and Vanzetti trial on the web.

I personally think that they were innocent of the murder that they were convicted of. But then, I'm from the Great Socialist North, and even named my cats after Sacco and Vanzetti, so I would think that.

Look over the facts in evidence and decide for yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-16-2002, 08:35 PM
barbitu8 barbitu8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
It looks like Sacco was guilty but Vanzetti was not. In any case, they'd both be dead by now.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-16-2002, 08:48 PM
Redhawke.the.bard Redhawke.the.bard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
According to the link provided by Larry Mudd above, the current most likely is that Sacco was most likely guilty, Vanzetti was most likely not. Which jibes with the last information I can recall hearing.

-Redhawke
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-16-2002, 09:26 PM
Spavined Gelding Spavined Gelding is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
I have a recollection of an article in American Heritage Magazine some twenty years ago(when A.H. was still hardback and before it was taken over by big business and had no advertising) that concluded, on the basis of forensic examination of shell casings found at the scene(?) and ammunition found at the house of one or the other of the defendants, that one or the other of them had done the deed. The fact remains that the trial was flawed.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-16-2002, 11:32 PM
JS Princeton JS Princeton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Indeed, in my various jaunts through American Anarchist stories I have read that Sacco was guilty while Vanzetti was innocent. This, of course, was idle speculation by somehow who was well-connected with the case. Nevertheless, I can tell you upon further research that this seems to be a valid conclusion. I'd refer you to a book or two, but they're all not at hand for me. I'm sure if you scour the section in your local public library on the case, you'll be bound to find this opinion somewhere
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-17-2002, 01:17 AM
Nametag Nametag is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 7,700
Never forget the words of the sentencing judge, though:

"You should have seen what I did to those anarchist bastards...."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-17-2002, 09:47 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,287
From the American Heritage article (that discusses a 1961 ballistics examination that conclusively linked Sacco's gun to the murder), the author, Francis Russell, noted:
Quote:
Several weeks before he [Anarchist leader Carlo Tresca] died [1943, murdered] he happened to be talking with his long-time friend Max Eastman, who had earlier written a "Profile" of him for the New Yorker. The subject of Sacco and Vanzetti came up and Eastman asked Tresca if he would feel free to tell him the truth about them.
Without hesitation Tresca replied: "Sacco was guilty, but Vanzetti was not." At that moment some people came into the room, interrupting the conversation, and Eastman never saw Tresca again. Yet the reasons for Tresca's answer must have been profound. He could easily have avoided the question or even denied his comrade's guilt. And if any man should have known the truth of the case, Tresca was the man.
Interestingly, a review of the initial trial indicates that most of the errors were on the part of the defense. The prosecutor and judge probably had the general fear/loathing of anarchists common to the time, but the case was presented by the prosecutor according to the evidence. However, the defense attorney wanted a "political" trial so as to indict "America" and he made numerous errors (basic ones like not getting evidence as well as tactical ones like trying to avoid the issue of the robbery and murder while pleading the case for Anarchist beliefs).

Where Sacco and Vanzetti were railroaded was in the appeals process, where most of the denials were based solely on a desire to execute the anarchists without regard to justice.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-17-2002, 10:02 AM
astorian astorian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
As mentioned earlier, the best evidence indicates that Sacco was guilty, while Vanzetti was innocent.

If Vanzetti had had a lawyer who was interested in defending HIS rights, and looking out for HIS interests, he probably could and SHOULD have been acquitted. Instead, he chose to put the interests of "the cause" above his own, and stuck with a lawyer more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in helping his innocent client.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-17-2002, 04:58 PM
barbitu8 barbitu8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
This was not the only case wherein a couple were indicted and both found guilty when one was innocent. Ethel Rosenberg was guilty of no more than being the hubby of a spy. She may have been an accessory, but she certainly did not leak any secrets to the Soviets. Even the prosecution knew that.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-17-2002, 06:35 PM
manhattan manhattan is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 9,132
Off to Great Debates.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-17-2002, 06:44 PM
december december is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,493
Quote:
Originally posted by barbitu8
Ethel Rosenberg was guilty of no more than being the hubby of a spy...
wifey
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-17-2002, 08:50 PM
capacitor capacitor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
I guess they charged her in order to get a confession from her husband.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-18-2002, 03:15 AM
Largo62 Largo62 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
About forty years ago I did a paper based on an extract of the trial record, including large chunks of testimony. I don't remember the details now, but my take on it at the time was that the "eyewitness" evidence against Sacco was shaky at best and purjured at worst. The witness whose testimony was most damning identified Sacco from a momentary glimpse of a man in a moving car more than fifty feet away.

Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted on a theory, introduced at that trial, called "consciousness of guilt." When they were arrested they "acted guilty" and the judge (Thayer was his name) allowed the jury to consider that as evidence of their guilt. The fact that they thought they were being picked up for their "subversive" activities or as draft dodgers never entered into the court's thinking. Thayer was openly antagonistic to the "anarchists," and sided with the prosecution on almost all challenges.

Were they guilty? I don't know. But in a modern day courtroom they probably wouldn't have been convicted, given the weakness of the evidence against them. Today a judge who made the kind of public comments Thayer did would have to recuse himself because of media pressure, if for no other reason.

Then again, as late as the sixties there was a judge named Hoffman and seven guys in Chicago...

IMHO, the system still has a ways to go before the word "justice" can be appended to it without a snicker.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-18-2002, 12:40 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,287
In the American Heritage article noted above, they re-examined the ballistic evidence. (The author had set out to demonstrate their innocence.) The bullet known as "Bullet III" had been identified as the one that caused the death. The hammer marks and barrel striations for Bullet III were identical to the marks from every bullet fired from Sacco's gun in subsequent tests according to the analysis of every person who examined them.

The issue was raised of whether Bullet III could have been switched at some point. However, part of the autopsy report included the point that the bullet had been found lodged against a bone--and was flattened on that side. The odds against being able to fire a bullet from Sacco's gun while reproducing the exact "bone flattening" phenomenon (particularly with 1920s technology) are astronomical.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.