1. Upton Sinclair uncovered that Sacco and Vanzetti had both “believed and taught violence”(Davidson 252). Vanzetti was not necessarily a pacifist, but instead could and would defend his anarchist cause with violence. Both had radical pamphlets and presumably explosives stored in their houses that each sought to conceal at the time of their apprehension by the police. Each was willing to die for their Idea and probably would have killed or performed other acts punishable by death in America anyway. Would they have killed if left to live? Would they have defended their Idea, bombed other statesmen, and harass the government?
  2. The “final irony” is that Sacco and Vanzetti would have been willing to kill those “men of Norfolk” and others in defence of their Idea. However, those same “men” would be willing to kill Sacco and Vanzetti for their Idea of what America should be. It was a triumph of the “men of Norfolk” over the anarchists, but both represented a decidedly different view of how America’s freedoms should be expressed.
  3. Their trial, and its ensuing appeals, was judged by a biased judge and jury. The evidence against Sacco and Vanzetti was slight, and the defence could easily circumvent the prosecution’s witnesses. The witnesses testifying against Sacco and Vanzetti were vacillating and biased; while each did not have a particular motive the lawyers and prosecution persuaded the witnesses that they had actually seen the two men. The case was openly discussed by jurors and the judge, who was clearly biased. Questions posed by the prosecution focused on Sacco and Vanzetti’s anarchist views rather than on their actual charge, which was murder. Laws put in place to prevent miscarriage of justice in a murder trial were ignored; basic rights that were to be given the prisoners were ignored. Any appeals the defence filed were ruled upon by the same judge. Public opinion favoured the two men after information about the trial procedures reached the public. Italy and Europe, in particular, who had been more receptive to the concept of socialism and anarchism, followed the trial closely. The trial signified America’s stand on issues the developed world had heard.
  4. I think Sacco and Vanzetti were undoubtedly NOT GUILTY for the crime they were charged with. The fantastic testimonies of the prosecutions’ witnesses and the unreliability of their gun-bullet analysis should have been enough for the jury to acquit the two men. Needless to say, the judge biased the trial and persuaded the jury to convict based on the defendants’ anarchist beliefs. The defence, on the other hand, not only had evidence to refute the other side but also solid evidence affirming the innocence of their clients. Their gun expert testified 100% that the bullet that had shot the paymaster was not fired from Vanzetti’s gun. Other witnesses gave alibis and testimonies that refuted the prosecution or affirmed the defence.
  5. Sacco and Vanzetti were GUILTY!
    The gun expert’s evidence for the prosecution was admittedly not 100% accurate but the bullet may still have been fired from Vanzetti’s gun.
    Sacco and Vanzetti had the consciousness of guilt in the crime. They realized they were guilty and sought to cover up in the presence of police. The fact that they had anarchist connexions and supposedly hidden paraphernalia had nothing whatsoever to do with their crime.
    Other witnesses testified that Sacco and Vanzetti were undoubtedly the men who had committed the crime, though their vantage points were far and the view obscure.
    Sacco and Vanzetti were identified from a police line-up.
    Sacco and Vanzetti were NOT GUILTY!
    The gun expert’s evidence for the defence was 100% accurate that the gun had not fired the fatal bullet.
    Ray Gould testified and swore that the fleeing people did not exemplify any traits of Sacco.
    The other witnesses, much closer than the prosecution’s, testified that other men were involved in the crime; Sacco and Vanzetti were not to be found.
    The police line-up was biased, and is not to be credited.
    Consciousness of guilt was due to the urge to hide incriminating propaganda and explosives in the houses of the two prisoners. They had assumed they were to be deported. Fearing that, they strove to conceal their incriminating possessions until the police search was over.