The Sacco and Vanzetti case did not provide enough evidence to support that they were the ones that commented the crimes they were accused of. For example the seven eyewitness all could not fully agree that they had seen Sacco commit the crime, they all said they saw him or a man who resembles him some even said that he may have been a bandit him self but none of them would fully come out and testify that he was indeed the one who did it. Another reason is that they could not even completely identify where bullet three had come from. Ballistics expert had stated that bullet number three had come from Sacco's pistol but two different defense experts had stated that there was no way the bullet had come from Sacco's gun. Another reason is that they had found a cap that resembled a cap that Sacco had been seen wearing they even had an eyewitness state that they saw Sacco with their own eyes wearing that cap that day of the crime, even though someone may have seen Sacco or someone resembling Sacco wearing a cap that day that is not sufficient evidence to show in the court room. This is because they do not have proof that it was his and this cap could have come from someone in the crowd that day and could be a false pice of evidence. Even though they went to pick up a car that resemble the one used in the murder there is no real proof that that was the car truly used in the crime. The wife of the repair shop had called the police which then Sacco and Vanzetti left the store. This may seem suspicious but both men stated that the reason they had left the car was because they had soon discovered the car did not have the proper 1920s licenses plates, not because they were trying to avoid being placed at the scene of the crime. The fact that Sacco was absent from work the day of the murder does not prove in any way he was a part of it. In fact Sacco claims he went to see a clerk in Boston about a passport, even though the clerk could not remember seeing Sacco that may be because he sees a few hundred people in one day. Also Sacco had testified he went to eat at a restaurant where seven eyewitness had claimed to see Sacco eating there early that same day. The fact that Sacco had lied to police about his radical beliefs after his arrest may seem as if he were trying to cover something up but Sacco himself stated that he only lied to police about his beliefs for the fear that they would deport him once they knew. As for Vanzetti he was at Plymouth selling fish at the time of the crime where six eyewitness in his defense claimed to have seen him there. Also Levangie could not even keep his story straight when if cam to identifying who the driver was leaving the crime scene. Levangie stated him self it would be hard to identify the driver shortly after the shooting, he also told someone else he had seen no one while another stated that Levangie declared the driver to be a fair-haired male while Vanzetti is a dark-haired man. Eve though Vanzettie owned a gun the resembled on at the crime, Vanzettie states that he bought the gun from a friend and he was concerned about all the hold ups so he got it for protection with the money he earned from selling fish, His friend even stated that he had in fact sold the gun to Vanzettie. Vanzettie had led to the police to protect his friends and him self seeing how the country was in the red scare he did not want to be seen in the wrong way, he was in Bridgewater the day of the crime to pick up anarchists literature. In conclusion neither Sacco nor Vanzetti had commited the crime that they were accused of.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Sacco_and_Vanzetti
No comments:
Post a Comment